PDA

View Full Version : Teams who will get 50+ wins that didn't last season?



Goose17
08-11-2013, 12:58 PM
Out of all the teams that had less than 50 wins last season who do you think will get 50+ wins this season?

My top 5 picks;


- Warriors. 47 last season, I'm thinking around 51/52 this season (maybe more if they stay healthy)

- Houston. 45 last season, I'm thinking 51/52 this season (maybe more if the chemistry works and their play style changes to fit Dwight)

- Chicago. 45 last season, I'm thinking 53/54 this season (maybe less if D.Rose has lost the touch)

- Indiana. 49 last season, I'm thinking dead on 50 this season.

- Brooklyn. 49 last season, I'm thinking we learned a lot from LA and "super teams" but I still feel this team has a good chance at netting over 50 games this season.



On the flip side, I think the teams that made it over 50 wins last season but won't manage it this season are;

New York. 54 wins last season, I'm thinking 47 this season.

MrfadeawayJB
08-11-2013, 01:36 PM
Bulls for sure. Quite a few teams in the west should see the w's pile up with teams like the suns and jazz tanking. Also I see Denver and okc wins going down this season

waveycrockett
08-11-2013, 01:56 PM
Yea DEN win total is going way down without Karl and Iggy

Cal827
08-11-2013, 02:10 PM
Yea DEN win total is going way down without Karl and Iggy

Lol, was just about to say that.

I think that the

Warriors
Rockets
Pacers
Chicago
Nets (possibly)

will get to 50 wins. Denver and NY will likely fall. Also, I think San Antonio will start to fall off. Whether or not that means they'll miss 50 is to be determined.

jimm120
08-11-2013, 02:31 PM
Lol, was just about to say that.

I think that the

Warriors
Rockets
Pacers
Chicago
Nets (possibly)

will get to 50 wins. Denver and NY will likely fall. Also, I think San Antonio will start to fall off. Whether or not that means they'll miss 50 is to be determined.

Knicks got better. How do you figure they'll more than 5 games worse next season?

Knicks should be 51-55 win team next season.

Denver definitely going down down down.

As for who'll increase...for sure Houston and Brooklyn, IMO.

I don't know about golden state. Will curry stay healthy and will him and Kay shoot 3s the same way?
I don't know about Chicago. I dont thing we'll get the rose from years past. He'll be good but not top 10 good..plus there's boozer.
Indy might not either. They are what they are. They'll be a tough out in the playoffs but end of the day, they aren't as good as they were in the playoffs.

tkshy
08-11-2013, 02:46 PM
Raptors!!!!!! Oh wait you said wins.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 02:49 PM
Knicks got better. How do you figure they'll more than 5 games worse next season?

How did they get better?




I don't know about golden state. Will curry stay healthy and will him and Kay shoot 3s the same way?


Curry has been shooting 3's like that for his entire career, on top of that this is the first off season since his rookie year that he's been healthy enough to work on his game, he's never had an entire off season to improve his game before, he's going to be scary good. And he only missed 4 games last season, I'm cautiously optimistic about his health. You're right about health being the biggest question mark for us though.




Indy might not either. They are what they are. They'll be a tough out in the playoffs but end of the day, they aren't as good as they were in the playoffs.

The East is pretty weak. Indy improved this offseason as well. Watson, Copeland and Scola are going to help. Their defense and the return of Danny Granger will be the difference maker.

IndyRealist
08-11-2013, 02:53 PM
Knicks got better. How do you figure they'll more than 5 games worse next season?

Knicks should be 51-55 win team next season.

Denver definitely going down down down.

As for who'll increase...for sure Houston and Brooklyn, IMO.

I don't know about golden state. Will curry stay healthy and will him and Kay shoot 3s the same way?
I don't know about Chicago. I dont thing we'll get the rose from years past. He'll be good but not top 10 good..plus there's boozer.
Indy might not either. They are what they are. They'll be a tough out in the playoffs but end of the day, they aren't as good as they were in the playoffs.

Historically, I'd say Bargnani is -3 wins by himself. Add the fact that he's going to take minutes from Stoudamire and Melo at PF, and possibly Chandler at C, and it would a lot worse than -3 wins. Yes, Melo will get his minutes but at SF, and I really think he's better at PF, which forces him into the paint. I'm not sure any non-Knicks fan believes New York got better.

Conversely, Indy has a very young squad, and the majority of their team still has not hit prime age. Roy Hibbert played with a wrist injury for half the year. Almost every below average contributor was let go this summer (Augustin, Young, Green). Even if the additions are horrible they'd break even with those guys. So given that 3 of the 5 projected starters will likely improve, and the bench will no worse than break even, it's not unreasonable to assume the Pacers will at least be +1 win.

Backstabber
08-11-2013, 02:59 PM
This whole thread is simply a bait thread. Every team over 50 wins is going to maintain there except for the NYK? Come on, the team that had the second best win total in the conference is going to drop to 6 games above .500.

A lot of people think we have slipped - comparing us to the surging competition. But the NYK got better too, and that is undeniable. We were in the 3, teams that were hurt most by injury last year, that's undeniable. Note: We didn't get all of our wins last year on the Nets, Pacers, and Bulls - so what makes anyone think we can't collect the same amount of total wins this year. Did Boston get better, did Toronto get better? Maybe Charlotte and Orlando got that much better.

We're really going to lose 7 games to last year? Where exactly are we going to lose them? Do haters out there think we're gonna get swept by the Pacers, Bulls, Nets, and Heat? That's just crazy.

This thread should be closed.

MTar786
08-11-2013, 03:03 PM
warriors- 51
Houston- 50
indi-54
Brooklyn-56
bulls-52

Goose17
08-11-2013, 03:07 PM
This whole thread is simply a bait thread.

It really isn't. Just because people have different opinions doesn't mean they're baiting you.

Backstabber
08-11-2013, 03:08 PM
How did they get better?

If you can look at the roster and figure it out, you're a hater.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 03:09 PM
If you can look at the roster and figure it out, you're a hater.

The Knicks are definitely worse than they were last year. Adding Bargnani alone makes you worse. Just ask any Raptors fan.

It's not that we're haters, it's just looking at it from an unbiased perspective.

Backstabber
08-11-2013, 03:10 PM
It really isn't. Just because people have different opinions doesn't mean they're baiting you.

Different opinion is come in 5th in the conference. Bait is a team that got better losing more than 5 games ground. We didn't necessarily build the victories off of the 4 teams that people think are directly in competition with us.

Backstabber
08-11-2013, 03:15 PM
The Knicks are definitely worse than they were last year. Adding Bargnani alone makes you worse. Just ask any Raptors fan.

It's not that we're haters, it's just looking at it from an unbiased perspective.

I don't have to ask a Raptors fan ****. I bet NJ, got worse when they got VC, or Miami got worse when they got Bosh. Not that there is an even comparison with Bargnani - but Toronto is a hell hole.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 03:16 PM
I don't have to ask a Raptors fan ****. I bet NJ, got worse when they got VC, or Miami got worse when they got Bosh. Not that there is an even comparison with Bargnani - but Toronto is a hell hole.

Now who's a hater?

We'll just have to wait and see what happens. No point on arguing it. Now are you going to join in with the thread or just continue to get mad and argue with everyone who doesn't think the Knicks are going to win a championship every year for the next seven decades?

BBallfan8
08-11-2013, 03:18 PM
Knicks are only going to win 47 games?!?! LMFAO

The knicks won 54 without Amar'e and Shumpert being healthy for 3/4 of the season. Every starter missed at least a month and their bench averaged 40 years of age.
A swap of Kidd, Camby, Sheed, Thomas and Novak for Metta, Beno, Bargs (if he sucls he wont play, the team has enough depth) and THJ makes them 7 games worse? ON WHAT PLANET?!

Goose17
08-11-2013, 03:19 PM
Different opinion is come in 5th in the conference. Bait is a team that got better losing more than 5 games ground. We didn't necessarily build the victories off of the 4 teams that people think are directly in competition with us.

But you didn't get better. It's not hating it's just my unbiased opinion.


I think all those teams hit 50 except maybe the Rockets. And you are complete and utter morons if you don't think the Knicks are winning 50 games next year.

No need for that. If you disagree fair enough, at least post with some class and stop acting like such a child. Just because somebody thinks differently from you doesn't make them a moron.

D-Leethal
08-11-2013, 03:20 PM
Now who's a hater?

We'll just have to wait and see what happens. No point on arguing it. Now are you going to join in with the thread or just continue to get mad and argue with everyone who doesn't think the Knicks are going to win a championship every year for the next seven decades?

Hyperbole does nothing for anyone. He's talking about winning 50 games, not winning a championship.

dhopisthename
08-11-2013, 03:20 PM
I bet there are a ton of 50 win teams as there will be teams that don't even play real starters by december

D-Leethal
08-11-2013, 03:20 PM
But you didn't get better. It's not hating it's just my unbiased opinion.



No need for that. If you disagree fair enough, at least post with some class and stop acting like such a child. Just because somebody thinks differently from you doesn't make them a moron.

When they start a thread that defies all logic and reasonability, yes it does.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 03:22 PM
Knicks are only going to win 47 games?!?! LMFAO

The knicks won 54 without Amar'e and Shumpert being healthy for 3/4 of the season. Every started missed at least a month and their bench averaged 40 years of age. A swap of Kidd, Camby, Sheed, Thomas amd Novak for Metta, Beno, Bargs (if he sucls he wont play, the team has enough depth) and THJ makes them 7 games worse? ON WHAT PLANET?!

You should at least stick to the topic and post who you think will improve.

As for what you said, Metta hasn't been relevant for a couple years now, his defense isn't anywhere close to what it used to be and he has really fell off on offense. Bargnani is terrible, his defense is awful and his offensive game is overrated. Stoudemire is another year older and will probably regress further, he's not that good a player anymore, certainly not what he used to be. Chandler is falling off as well. Then you traded your best 3 point shooter, not a great idea for a team that won most of it's games thanks to it's exceptional 3 point shooting.

Just my opinion though, you don't have to agree.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 03:23 PM
When they start a thread that defies all logic and reasonability, yes it does.

How does this thread defy all logic? I was asking who you think would improve and who would fall off. I didn't say "This is fact! I am god! I know everything! This WILL happen!" I simply asked for opinions.

You're acting very strange, I fail to see why you're so butthurt, are you a Knicks homer?

Backstabber
08-11-2013, 03:23 PM
Now who's a hater?

We'll just have to wait and see what happens. No point on arguing it. Now are you going to join in with the thread or just continue to get mad and argue with everyone who doesn't think the Knicks are going to win a championship every year for the next seven decades?

I said the Knicks we're gonna win a championship every year, hell no. I didn't say that. I would hope Knick fans wouldn't get on the general thread and say anything remotely like this, but to say we're gonna lose 5 additional games; when we've clearly gotten better, is madness.

By the way, don't try to put words in my mouth.

BBallfan8
08-11-2013, 03:27 PM
Raptors fans need to stop being bitter about Bargnani... The knicks didnt get him to be their star player like toronto needed for him. Knicks need him to be their 6th - 7th best player and he will be an upgrade. If he doesnt play well, he wont see the court a lot.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 03:27 PM
I said the Knicks we're gonna win a championship every year, hell no. I didn't say that. I would hope Knick fans wouldn't get on the general thread and say anything remotely like this, but to say we're gonna lose 5 additional games; when we've clearly gotten better, is madness.

By the way, don't try to put words in my mouth.

But I fail to see how you've gotten better. Care to explain how you have improved? Maybe I'll understand your anger more if you can elaborate on why you think you've improved, from my perspective the team has gotten worse while Chicago, Indy and Brooklyn have all improved, even if slightly.


Metta hasn't been relevant for a couple years now, his defense isn't anywhere close to what it used to be and he has really fell off on offense. Bargnani is terrible, his defense is awful and his offensive game is overrated. Stoudemire is another year older and will probably regress further, he's not that good a player anymore, certainly not what he used to be. Chandler is falling off as well. Then you traded your best 3 point shooter, not a great idea for a team that won most of it's games thanks to it's exceptional 3 point shooting.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 03:28 PM
If he doesnt play well, he wont see the court a lot.

Then how is he an upgrade? Would have been better keeping Novak. You know what you're getting with him and you would still be able to splash the treys.

BBallfan8
08-11-2013, 03:33 PM
Then how is he an upgrade? Would have been better keeping Novak. You know what you're getting with him and you would still be able to splash the treys.

Knicks are taking a chance that a change of scenery can make him a contributor again. I agree he has been terrible, but you cannot deny that he is talented. Novak is not a big loss because every year he is a liability in the playoffs where the defense turns up to the point that he doesnt get off the bench. Bargs can work out and become a solid rotation player in the right situation.

elledaddy
08-11-2013, 03:38 PM
Then how is he an upgrade? Would have been better keeping Novak. You know what you're getting with him and you would still be able to splash the treys.


Cant see why you wouldnt think this is a bait thread. You said 5 teams would be better giving them 21 extra wins in the process but only pick the Knicks as falling by 7 wins. Where are these teams gonna get all these extra wins from? Some other plus 50 win teams would havento lose as well. Your talking about knicks fans not explaining how they got better but then write Bargs equals - 3 wins. Really, thats all? Just him being on the team means 3 losses? To who? Last year even if the Knicks got swept by Brook, Ind and chi they still would have had 50 wins. Where are these 7 extra losses gonna come from?

Backstabber
08-11-2013, 03:41 PM
But I fail to see how you've gotten better. Care to explain how you have improved? Maybe I'll understand your anger more if you can elaborate on why you think you've improved, from my perspective the team has gotten worse while Chicago, Indy and Brooklyn have all improved, even if slightly.

Under the most extreme situation last year (including major injuries to players we thought would be major contributors), we won 54 games.

1) Aside from Kidd, we haven't lost one player that was a major contributor to this team.

2) We'll have 2 major contributors that had major injuries last year (Shumpert/Amare) back into the fold (just like the Bulls have Rose and Indy has Granger).

3) Regardless of butthurt Raptors fans' predictions - we've scored a superior replacement to Novak in Bargnani.

4) We've managed to replace Kidd, who was absolutely horrid the last 3/4 of the season with Beno, and scored an unheralded pickup in Metta.

Even if you thought we hadn't made progress in comparison to our competition, a reasonable thought process wouldn't have us as over 5 games worse. That's just being a hater.

D-Leethal
08-11-2013, 03:50 PM
How does this thread defy all logic? I was asking who you think would improve and who would fall off. I didn't say "This is fact! I am god! I know everything! This WILL happen!" I simply asked for opinions.

You're acting very strange, I fail to see why you're so butthurt, are you a Knicks homer?

You started a thread for 'who is gonna improve' and conveniently added your last sentence "oh yea and who's going to get worse? The Knicks."

Not too difficult to see your agenda here.

And it defies all logic because MWP is still a contributor, he still started on a playoff team last year, he will only be asked to guard 4s here which he can still do very well and anything he adds is a bonus to the 54 win team last year since we gave up nothing to get him. Bargnani is a 1000% upgrade over Novak because he can actually score the ball with a defender within 5 feet of him, he actually requires big men to guard him, Amare did nothing to contribute to our 54 win team last year, so why would we need him to hit 50 this year? We were 16-13 with him last year, 38-15 without him. Novak sucks, the fact that he can hit wide open shots doesn't change the fact that he can't do anything else at all, and he would get shut down by SGs like Jason Terry, teams would put their worst defender on him, be it a 5'6 guy or a 6'10 guy, tell them not to help, and he was rendered useless. Shumpert didn't play half the year either.

Again, your opinion defies all logic, and its pretty easy to see your agenda with that your cute little off topic Knicks jab at the end of an irrelevant thread.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 04:01 PM
You started a thread for 'who is gonna improve' and conveniently added your last sentence "oh yea and who's going to get worse? The Knicks."

Not too difficult to see your agenda here.
.

You're paranoid. If I'm talking about who will improve it only makes sense to also talk about the flip side, who will get worse.

It's just my opinion. It's not hate. I don't consider the Knicks a rival or a threat. What do I have to hate them for?

I'm being completely unbiased here. From my perspective Knicks have gotten worse and will drop a few games compared to last season.

Just my opinion that's all.

Goose17
08-11-2013, 04:05 PM
Cant see why you wouldnt think this is a bait thread. You said 5 teams would be better giving them 21 extra wins in the process but only pick the Knicks as falling by 7 wins. Where are these teams gonna get all these extra wins from? Some other plus 50 win teams would havento lose as well. Your talking about knicks fans not explaining how they got better but then write Bargs equals - 3 wins. Really, thats all? Just him being on the team means 3 losses? To who? Last year even if the Knicks got swept by Brook, Ind and chi they still would have had 50 wins. Where are these 7 extra losses gonna come from?

I said that because out of all the other teams that won fifty last season, the Knicks are the only one I think will fall below it.

Denver is a shout though. Will have to see how they get on with the coaching changes.

And I didn't write Barg equals -3 wins. That was someone else. He's right though.

Ill21
08-11-2013, 05:00 PM
Just another Knicks bashing thread,

Got to love the NBA forum

jerellh528
08-11-2013, 05:15 PM
Ill say the lakers

amos1er
08-11-2013, 05:16 PM
Ill say the lakers

I'll second that.

naztrack
08-11-2013, 06:11 PM
Out of all the teams that had less than 50 wins last season who do you think will get 50+ wins this season?

My top 5 picks;


- Warriors. 47 last season, I'm thinking around 51/52 this season (maybe more if they stay healthy)

- Houston. 45 last season, I'm thinking 51/52 this season (maybe more if the chemistry works and their play style changes to fit Dwight)

- Chicago. 45 last season, I'm thinking 53/54 this season (maybe less if D.Rose has lost the touch)

- Indiana. 49 last season, I'm thinking dead on 50 this season.

- Brooklyn. 49 last season, I'm thinking we learned a lot from LA and "super teams" but I still feel this team has a good chance at netting over 50 games this season.



On the flip side, I think the teams that made it over 50 wins last season but won't manage it this season are;

New York. 54 wins last season, I'm thinking 47 this season.

Mike Woodson has improved his number of games won each season on both the knicks and the hawks....so why will that change with arguably his best team so far?

Max.This
08-11-2013, 06:25 PM
the warriors are trash, their not getting 50 wins

yungincome
08-11-2013, 06:39 PM
Bait. Thread.

Jets012
08-11-2013, 07:10 PM
I thought we were discussing 50 + Win potential teams? Why are the Knicks even being mentioned in this thread?

MrfadeawayJB
08-11-2013, 07:12 PM
I understand that Knicks fans could be upset. Yes they are healthy with shumpert who will undoubtedly help. However I think bringing back amare into the mix hurts them. He takes Melos mins at the 4 position and they can't play together

xxplayerxx23
08-11-2013, 07:18 PM
I thought we were discussing 50 + Win potential teams? Why are the Nets even being mentioned in this thread?


Not sure why the nets were brought up I agree ;)

xxplayerxx23
08-11-2013, 07:20 PM
I understand that Knicks fans could be upset. Yes they are healthy with shumpert who will undoubtedly help. However I think bringing back amare into the mix hurts them. He takes Melos mins at the 4 position and they can't play together

The key for me is can bargs go back to being a stretch 4. Melo shouldn't play the 4 IMO. If bargs hits his shots and Knicks stay mostly healthy they will win 50+ again. If injuries strike and bargs blows like he did last year we will have a struggle to get to 50. I expect top 5 to win 50 in the easyt

king4day
08-11-2013, 08:18 PM
I think the OP was pretty spot on.
However, NY will probably win more games if they don't have the injury issues they had last year. At the very least, they are a plus 50 win team. Just because the other teams got better doesn't mean they got worse.

seikou8
08-11-2013, 08:20 PM
The key for me is can bargs go back to being a stretch 4. Melo shouldn't play the 4 IMO. If bargs hits his shots and Knicks stay mostly healthy they will win 50+ again. If injuries strike and bargs blows like he did last year we will have a struggle to get to 50. I expect top 5 to win 50 in the easyt

very true thsi how i feel we need more traditional lineup to match with better teams in east and if bargs blows up again he get worse 100x worse treatment by fan of ny then raptors .

MrfadeawayJB
08-11-2013, 10:19 PM
I think the OP was pretty spot on.
However, NY will probably win more games if they don't have the injury issues they had last year. At the very least, they are a plus 50 win team. Just because the other teams got better doesn't mean they got worse.

They may not be worse, but that does not mean wins could go down

TrueFan420
08-12-2013, 03:44 AM
If you can look at the roster and figure it out, you're a hater.

I think a lot of people are overreacting about bargs and making it out to be worse than it is. Whether you win more lose more or stay the same i don't know. However if he thinks you got worse thats fine its his opinion that doesn't make him a hater or this a bait thread.

Rush
08-12-2013, 03:54 AM
Nvm.

dalton749
08-12-2013, 04:35 AM
Isn't jr injured to start the season? Amare and melo together probably means less wins because they won't sit him if he's healthy.
Bargnani does nothing well to help win games and put up mediocre numbers on a bad team

Boston Milwaukee Philly got worse, but every other team has gotten better.

The Knicks will probably be around 50 give or take a few games but to freak out over a slight difference of opinions is just sad.

However, the raptors are more likely to make 50 wins than the Knicks are to improve on last years record

seikou8
08-12-2013, 05:55 AM
Isn't jr injured to start the season? Amare and melo together probably means less wins because they won't sit him if he's healthy.
Bargnani does nothing well to help win games and put up mediocre numbers on a bad team

Boston Milwaukee Philly got worse, but every other team has gotten better.

The Knicks will probably be around 50 give or take a few games but to freak out over a slight difference of opinions is just sad.

However, the raptors are more likely to make 50 wins than the Knicks are to improve on last years record

wait
what
imao

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 06:53 AM
Chicago - yes, absolutely.
Houston - yes, absolutely.

Golden State - meh, I say no, just short. Assuming Bogut or Lee's health at this point is too much.

Indianapolis - Maybe. They did not really improve and they still lack depth. I see them around 47-49.

Brooklyn - No. I see them around 45. Max out at 50, but I don't see it.

New York. No. Again, 45 wins or so, at best. I could see them falling out of the playoffs. They probably catch a 6-8 seed and are bounced first round. Where are the losses coming from? The top of the conference will beat you more and, yes, the bottom got better. Tankapalooza 2013 could save you, though, if teams like the Raptors, Cavs and Wizards all start tanking. However, Raptors and Cavs are both better and the whole Wet got better with the exception of Denver, who is still a better team than NYK.

Clippers got better.
Warriors got a little better.
Houston got better.

And guess who else got better? My dark horse for 2014 to win 50+ games who didn't? Atlanta.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 06:57 AM
Mike Woodson has improved his number of games won each season on both the knicks and the hawks....so why will that change with arguably his best team so far?

Because there is no argument for this being his best team so far? :shrug:

Pacerlive
08-12-2013, 07:33 AM
Lol at the Pacers didn't improve much? Some of you guys must really like Tyler or really underrate the additions of Scola, DG and a backup pg who can actually guard someone.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 07:58 AM
Lol at the Pacers didn't improve much? Some you guys must really like Tyler or really underrate the additions of Scola, DG and a backup pg who can actually guard someone.


Lol at the Pacers didn't improve much? Some you guys must really like Tyler or really underrate the additions of Scola, DG and a backup pg who can actually guard someone.

Tyler is MUCH better than Scola at this point. This is not Scola from 2 years ago. He has fallen apart. Chemistry with Granger is a big wild card and, if it lessens George's usage (which it will) it becomes a net negative, especially since Lance Stephenson had such an outstanding year last year by his standards.

You aren't just "adding DG" you realize that, right? Diminishing returns exist in basketball. If you put 5 guys on the court who score 25 points a game, you don't suddenly score 125 points. Look at the new look Heat. Bosh's numbers fell off. There is only so much ball and so many shots to go around and only so many minutes of productivity.

So, the reality is, where are Grangers shots coming from? Well, largely from Stephenson. And, guess what? Stephenson was as good as Granger has ever been last year, if not better. So, will Granger be better than your backup SG last year? Yes, but that is largely affected by minutes. You were a little fluid with minute allocation and lineups, so the affect of adding Granger will be minimal, depending upon how much he takes away from George, Hill, and Stephenson. And that assumes he comes back and plays great.

- Hansborough, + Scola = big loss.
Big loss + Danny Granger = at best, breaking even.
Breaking even + Watson = minimal improvement.

Factor in that the bottom of the East got better and the entire West got better and, well, I find it unlikely you all win 50 games, especially when you consider Hibbert's poor production in the regular season. So far he has been a postseason guy. I am not buying high on a breakout this year.

Rapsfanforlife
08-12-2013, 09:28 AM
Isn't jr injured to start the season? Amare and melo together probably means less wins because they won't sit him if he's healthy.
Bargnani does nothing well to help win games and put up mediocre numbers on a bad team

Boston Milwaukee Philly got worse, but every other team has gotten better.

The Knicks will probably be around 50 give or take a few games but to freak out over a slight difference of opinions is just sad.

However, the raptors are more likely to make 50 wins than the Knicks are to improve on last years record

I think that the Raptors could be a 40-50 win team, 50 is a big stretch though. knicks I think stay about the same as last year...maybe +/- 1 or 2 wins.

Chicago, Houston, Indie (a stretch but I think they will do it), Clippers,warriors, Brooklyn...they all have a good chance at the 50 win mark.

Pacerlive
08-12-2013, 10:05 AM
Tyler is MUCH better than Scola at this point. This is not Scola from 2 years ago. He has fallen apart. Chemistry with Granger is a big wild card and, if it lessens George's usage (which it will) it becomes a net negative, especially since Lance Stephenson had such an outstanding year last year by his standards.

You aren't just "adding DG" you realize that, right? Diminishing returns exist in basketball. If you put 5 guys on the court who score 25 points a game, you don't suddenly score 125 points. Look at the new look Heat. Bosh's numbers fell off. There is only so much ball and so many shots to go around and only so many minutes of productivity.

So, the reality is, where are Grangers shots coming from? Well, largely from Stephenson. And, guess what? Stephenson was as good as Granger has ever been last year, if not better. So, will Granger be better than your backup SG last year? Yes, but that is largely affected by minutes. You were a little fluid with minute allocation and lineups, so the affect of adding Granger will be minimal, depending upon how much he takes away from George, Hill, and Stephenson. And that assumes he comes back and plays great.

- Hansborough, + Scola = big loss.
Big loss + Danny Granger = at best, breaking even.
Breaking even + Watson = minimal improvement.

Factor in that the bottom of the East got better and the entire West got better and, well, I find it unlikely you all win 50 games, especially when you consider Hibbert's poor production in the regular season. So far he has been a postseason guy. I am not buying high on a breakout this year.

So Lance is equal to or better than Danny Granger? By what measurable? TS%, PER or do you just "think" he is equal to or better than Danny.

The fact is Danny is a lot better scorer than Lance and defensively DG at the SF and PG at the sg off sets whatever defensive advantage the Pacers had with Lance starting.

The Pacers were bad at spreading the floor last year and DG will solve this problem. They also were ranked 23rd in offense another area where Danny can help.

Nevermind DG has said he doesn't mind playing second fiddle to PG so chemistry problems seem to be a little overblown. IF anything a healthy Roy Hibbert with no wrist injury should improve the team as well.

The bench could use Lance as well for shot creating and an offensive punch. They again were the biggest achilles heel of the Pacers and that included that irreplaceable Tyler. LOL!

nycericanguy
08-12-2013, 10:15 AM
I think Granger will make IND better, but not by a whole much. The guy had some pretty serious injury issues last year and played 5 games and was AWFUL in those 5 games.

If he can come back and in limited minutes give IND 10ppg or so does that help them? A bit, but considering he's always been a low 40's FG% guy and not a great defender, you wonder what his overall impact will be. Especially when Stephenson is really coming along and shot 46% last year, something DG hasn't done since his rookie year. And of course Lance is the better defender and rebounder.

I think DG will help them because he can create his own shot, but I don't think it's going to be a HUGE impace. Is he enough to close the 5 game gap between IND and NY from last year? We shall see.

But I could see this being like the Amare/Melo thing, on paper Amare's numbers look good and NY could use a 2nd scorer so you'd think they be better. But NY is an astounding 52-19 with Melo alone, and 38-38 with Amare & Melo.

Pacerlive
08-12-2013, 10:22 AM
I think Granger will make IND better, but not by a whole much. The guy had some pretty serious injury issues last year and played 5 games and was AWFUL in those 5 games.

If he can come back and in limited minutes give IND 10ppg or so does that help them? A bit, but considering he's always been a low 40's FG% guy and not a great defender, you wonder what his overall impact will be. Especially when Stephenson is really coming along and shot 46% last year, something DG hasn't done since his rookie year. And of course Lance is the better defender and rebounder.

I think DG will help them because he can create his own shot, but I don't think it's going to be a HUGE impace. Is he enough to close the 5 game gap between IND and NY from last year? We shall see.

But I could see this being like the Amare/Melo thing, on paper Amare's numbers look good and NY could use a 2nd scorer so you'd think they be better. But NY is an astounding 52-19 with Melo alone, and 38-38 with Amare & Melo.

Just curious do you know what TS% is and where Danny ranks there on the Pacers?

king4day
08-12-2013, 10:29 AM
Tyler is MUCH better than Scola at this point. This is not Scola from 2 years ago. He has fallen apart. Chemistry with Granger is a big wild card and, if it lessens George's usage (which it will) it becomes a net negative, especially since Lance Stephenson had such an outstanding year last year by his standards.

You aren't just "adding DG" you realize that, right? Diminishing returns exist in basketball. If you put 5 guys on the court who score 25 points a game, you don't suddenly score 125 points. Look at the new look Heat. Bosh's numbers fell off. There is only so much ball and so many shots to go around and only so many minutes of productivity.

So, the reality is, where are Grangers shots coming from? Well, largely from Stephenson. And, guess what? Stephenson was as good as Granger has ever been last year, if not better. So, will Granger be better than your backup SG last year? Yes, but that is largely affected by minutes. You were a little fluid with minute allocation and lineups, so the affect of adding Granger will be minimal, depending upon how much he takes away from George, Hill, and Stephenson. And that assumes he comes back and plays great.

- Hansborough, + Scola = big loss.
Big loss + Danny Granger = at best, breaking even.
Breaking even + Watson = minimal improvement.

Factor in that the bottom of the East got better and the entire West got better and, well, I find it unlikely you all win 50 games, especially when you consider Hibbert's poor production in the regular season. So far he has been a postseason guy. I am not buying high on a breakout this year.

I thought Hansborough was just a defensive energy guy? They needed post scoring and Scola gives that to them. He can't match what Tyler does on D but he's a superior jump shooter and post player. Scola hasn't fallen apart. He had a good year last season for such a bad Phoenix team.

nycericanguy
08-12-2013, 10:36 AM
Just curious do you know what TS% is and where Danny ranks there on the Pacers?

I'm sure he's high on their team since he gets to the line a good deal, and I think his ability to get to the line and create will help IND.

But I mean Amare has an insane TS% and is always very efficient, but he hasn't made NY better with Melo.

Like I said, I think he'll make them slightly better, but considering defense, rebounding and fit, I'm not sure he's a big upgrade over Stephenson at this point. And this is assuming Granger is Granger again, his TS% has been in steady decline since 2007 and he was awful when he did play last year.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 10:43 AM
So Lance is equal to or better than Danny Granger? By what measurable? TS%, PER or do you just "think" he is equal to or better than Danny.

The fact is Danny is a lot better scorer than Lance and defensively DG at the SF and PG at the sg off sets whatever defensive advantage the Pacers had with Lance starting.

The Pacers were bad at spreading the floor last year and DG will solve this problem. They also were ranked 23rd in offense another area where Danny can help.

Nevermind DG has said he doesn't mind playing second fiddle to PG so chemistry problems seem to be a little overblown. IF anything a healthy Roy Hibbert with no wrist injury should improve the team as well.

The bench could use Lance as well for shot creating and an offensive punch. They again were the biggest achilles heel of the Pacers and that included that irreplaceable Tyler. LOL!

Win Shares, Wins Produced, and RAPM. Lance was every bit as good as Granger has ever been, and Granger is vastly overrated... Bc points are vastly overrated.

Pacerlive
08-12-2013, 10:55 AM
I'm sure he's high on their team since he gets to the line a good deal, and I think his ability to get to the line and create will help IND.

But I mean Amare has an insane TS% and is always very efficient, but he hasn't made NY better with Melo.

Like I said, I think he'll make them slightly better, but considering defense, rebounding and fit, I'm not sure he's a big upgrade over Stephenson at this point. And this is assuming Granger is Granger again, his TS% has been in steady decline since 2007 and he was awful when he did play last year.

I am sure if he is awful like last year he won't play much at all so its a moot point but he had the surgery that Dwade had in 2006. I expect him back and as far as fit goes Lance's problem is decision making and a rough 3 point shot. Danny is an upgrade in both of those areas. I am not worried about the Pacers defense and if anything they can always sub in Lance if Danny gets abused but most teams don't have an elite sf and sg that can hurt you.

You keep bringing up Stat and Melo but really the problem there is the overall effectiveness of the Knicks small ball approach which where Stat doesn't fit very well.

nycericanguy
08-12-2013, 10:58 AM
I am sure if he is awful like last year he won't play much at all so its a moot point but he had the surgery that Dwade had in 2006. I expect him back and as far as fit goes Lance's problem is decision making and a rough 3 point shot. Danny is an upgrade in both of those areas. I am not worried about the Pacers defense and if anything they can always sub in Lance if Danny gets abused but most teams don't have an elite sf and sg that can hurt you.

You keep bringing up Stat and Melo but really the problem there is the overall effectiveness of the Knicks small ball approach which where Stat doesn't fit very well.

I think we're in agreement that he will help them, but do you see it as a HUGE upgrade? I don't, Granger & Lance's careers are going in opposite directions right now.

Pacerlive
08-12-2013, 10:58 AM
Win Shares, Wins Produced, and RAPM. Lance was every bit as good as Granger has ever been, and Granger is vastly overrated... Bc points are vastly overrated.

On the Pacers points are not overrated.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 11:01 AM
I thought Hansborough was just a defensive energy guy? They needed post scoring and Scola gives that to them. He can't match what Tyler does on D but he's a superior jump shooter and post player. Scola hasn't fallen apart. He had a good year last season for such a bad Phoenix team.

Scola was barely average according to RAPM and equal to Hansbrough. He was downright awful according to WP and worth 3 less wins.

WS says he was 33% worse than Hansbrough. ezPM says he was below average and much worse than Hansbrough.

Scola didn't have a good year. He is old and bad. It happens.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 11:02 AM
On the Pacers points are not overrated.

Yes, they are. Points are extremely overrated by fans in basketball. Gross points have little to nothing to do with winning basketball games. And it has been proven over and over again.

nycericanguy
08-12-2013, 11:17 AM
Yes, they are. Points are extremely overrated by fans in basketball. Gross points have little to nothing to do with winning basketball games. And it has been proven over and over again.

They came within a few seconds of beating the world champs... I don't think they're overrated.

EDIT: not sure if you're talking about the Pacers or just "points"... but the Pacers as a team aren't overrated

Pacerlive
08-12-2013, 11:19 AM
I think we're in agreement that he will help them, but do you see it as a HUGE upgrade? I don't, Granger & Lance's careers are going in opposite directions right now.

I don't think they need a huge upgrade but the overall fit is that they need 3 point shooting to play the inside out game that they do with Hibbert and Dwest.

The big upgrade is having Hibbert injury free starting training camp and playing efficient basketball on the offensive end. People always assume DG has a lust to score when in fact when he first came into the league he was our our second best defender behind Artest. He got hosed of course with bad coaching and a total rebuild but there is history of him playing well with PG. Big upgrade? No but a good fit given his 3 point shooting.

Tony_Starks
08-12-2013, 11:22 AM
Brooklyn
Warriors
Lakers
Chicago

Dark horse- Pistons

All-In
08-12-2013, 11:36 AM
Chicago - yes, absolutely.
Houston - yes, absolutely.

Golden State - meh, I say no, just short. Assuming Bogut or Lee's health at this point is too much.

Indianapolis - Maybe. They did not really improve and they still lack depth. I see them around 47-49.

Brooklyn - No. I see them around 45. Max out at 50, but I don't see it.

New York. No. Again, 45 wins or so, at best. I could see them falling out of the playoffs. They probably catch a 6-8 seed and are bounced first round. Where are the losses coming from? The top of the conference will beat you more and, yes, the bottom got better. Tankapalooza 2013 could save you, though, if teams like the Raptors, Cavs and Wizards all start tanking. However, Raptors and Cavs are both better and the whole Wet got better with the exception of Denver, who is still a better team than NYK.

Clippers got better.
Warriors got a little better.
Houston got better.

And guess who else got better? My dark horse for 2014 to win 50+ games who didn't? Atlanta.

The pacers didn’t improve, lack depth??? LOL So you’re saying you rather have Hansbrough, Gerald Green, Sam Young, DJ Augustin over Luis Scola, Chris Copeland, CJ Watson, Danny Granger/Lance Stevenson…I’m pretty sure if you ask a Pacer fan it’s the latter

ArmLaker
08-12-2013, 11:41 AM
Warriors, nets, bulls, rockets, lakers, pacers, and especially the Knicks(easily) are going to be 50+ win teams next season.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 11:46 AM
The pacers didn’t improve, lack depth??? LOL So you’re saying you rather have Hansbrough, Gerald Green, Sam Young, DJ Augustin over Luis Scola, Chris Copeland, CJ Watson, Danny Granger/Lance Stevenson…I’m pretty sure if you ask a Pacer fan it’s the latter

I am not worried about what any fan of any team thinks about that team. I am concerned about what critical thinkers think. Most fans (especially on PSD) are not critical thinkers when it comes to their teams.

elledaddy
08-12-2013, 11:50 AM
Win Shares, Wins Produced, and RAPM. Lance was every bit as good as Granger has ever been, and Granger is vastly overrated... Bc points are vastly overrated.

My bad for butting into you convo but wouldn't his ( Lance) WS,WP and RAPM basically appear to be near Granger's simply because Indiana won it's most games in 10 years? I mean all those things are directly tied to team wins so for the most part, wouldn't more team wins equal higher WS,WP and RAPM?

Nycbball08
08-12-2013, 12:01 PM
Pacers, Nets, Bulls.

monty77
08-12-2013, 12:02 PM
Totally agree! I only have one doubt about Dallas Mavericks. They have adquired Calderon and he is able to play better the other players and lead the team. Both Carter and Marion are veteran player but none of them have a leader mentality, so that Calderon will be a great adquisition. Yet they lost Kaman and Brand and got Dalembert so I expect they add other big man.

Regarding other teams, as Bulls' fan I am, I am sure that Bulls will reach more than 50 victories if they stay healthy. The last 2 season with Rose at full capacity they reach 60 victories, so I think that they are able to try it again. Indiana have a great potential to reach 50-55 victories too. This two teams along with Miami are the best defender squades in the Easter Conference.

Adding players such as Pierce (35), Terry (35), Garnett (37) and Kirilenko (32), the Brooklyn Nets are a very dangerous team in playoffs, but I don't know if they will be focussed during de season to achieve 50 wins. Last year everybody notices that Boston players went short of fuel.

Warriors and Houston are the two trendy teams in the NBA and it is easy to understand why. Warriors have a young and talented core, with a emergent star player such as Curry. If they keep a decent big players and Barnes and Thompson continuing progression is easy to see him above all together with Rockets.

Houston get the best center in the league and have the needed weapon to take advance of him. Harden and Person are arguably two of the smartest players inside the NBA so they will be able to profit from Howard.

TheIlladelph16
08-12-2013, 12:06 PM
I'm confused as to how the suggestion that the Knicks might lose five more games than last year is that crazy? I'm not going to get into a whole "yous guyz are da knicks haters" discussion here, but that's not some ludicrous suggestion. Its FIVE ****ing games. He didn't say you'd fall under .500.

Bulls, Pacers, Nets all have a good shot at 50

So do the Warriors and Rockets

At the same time, I can see the Nets falling apart and the Knicks/Warriors underachieving or derailed by injury.

All-In
08-12-2013, 12:18 PM
I am not worried about what any fan of any team thinks about that team. I am concerned about what critical thinkers think. Most fans (especially on PSD) are not critical thinkers when it comes to their teams.

Lol nice critical response to the actual question

Stinkyoutsider
08-12-2013, 12:24 PM
I'm not quite sure as far as who's going to make it to 50 this year because the season is a grind. I do think the standings will be top heavy this year between teams like Miami, Indiana, Chicago, both NY teams, and the bottom teams like Charlotte and Toronto.

nycericanguy
08-12-2013, 12:31 PM
I'm confused as to how the suggestion that the Knicks might lose five more games than last year is that crazy? I'm not going to get into a whole "yous guyz are da knicks haters" discussion here, but that's not some ludicrous suggestion. Its FIVE ****ing games. He didn't say you'd fall under .500.

Bulls, Pacers, Nets all have a good shot at 50

So do the Warriors and Rockets

At the same time, I can see the Nets falling apart and the Knicks/Warriors underachieving or derailed by injury.

actually the op said NY would win 47, that's a 7 game dropoff.

Pablonovi
08-12-2013, 12:36 PM
Two thoughts:
A number of posters are suggesting a large number of 50+ win teams; but that automatically forces a near-equal number of teams to lose 50+ games. I don't think the West will have 3+ 50+ loss teams; and the East won't have 4+ 50+ loss teams. Given that, the 50+ win teams will have to force significant additional wins from the top teams - not gonna be easy to do.

Metta: I watched a good number of Lakers' games last year; and, imo, Metta is DONE! Every time he shot I cringed, especially his 3-pointers. His defense is no longer elite. And his attitude is always a BIG question mark. Putting him on any team with even a single additional "wildcard"; and you're risking BIG trouble. So, IF he plays lots, that means the Knicks are NOT a 50-win team; IF he doesn't play much, it means the Knicks didn't get much by picking him up.

In sum, I don't think the Knicks can get 50 wins; I think they'll be around 45-37; and, if they were in the West, they wouldn't qualify for the playoffs because, imo, there ARE 8 teams better than them in the West. (And I have ZERO against the Knicks either nowadays OR going back to their 1960's teams). Afterall, I was born and raised in New Jersey, not far from N.Y.City; I watched more Knicks games than any other team (except Boston, because I went to 4 years of High School there) and I rooted for them.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 12:48 PM
My bad for butting into you convo but wouldn't his ( Lance) WS,WP and RAPM basically appear to be near Granger's simply because Indiana won it's most games in 10 years? I mean all those things are directly tied to team wins so for the most part, wouldn't more team wins equal higher WS,WP and RAPM?

Omg, my phone just ****ed me. I had a huge, detailed write up, and it's gone. Ugh.

Clarificationr: I was wrong on RAPM, it was EZPM. EzPM likes Stephenson, RAPM doesnt so much. Also, I meant Lance was as good as Granger has been in the last 3 years. That's an important distinction. I want to be clear, sorry I wasn't in the first post.

Short answer: possible, but not likely. Team wins don't have a large affect on either WS or WP. Offensively, team performance has a very small affect in WS, as team margin of victory is a small component in the calculation. Team wins have zero affect on WP's offensive component.

So, since Lance's value is largely defensive, it is possible that it is due to team success, though unlikely. Also, it would be just as possible to argue that this team was so good defensively in no small part thanks to the fact that Stephenson was playing.

In the end, Granger is a 30-year old player coming off a season-long injury who was already on the decline both in terms of age and production. Stephenson is a young guy who is going to get better for the next few years.

Honestly, the Pacers should have kept Leonard and used Granger in a package to try and acquire a PG. would have given them ridiculous cap and flexibility and Granger still had a high sell value then. It is unfortunate they kept the more expensive, older player and traded away the future superstar on a rookie contract.

Just to be clear, I like this Pacers team, a lot. I just don't think a declining, 30-year old Granger who is goin to take minutes away from a young, productive Stephenson is going to be a large upgrade, if one at all.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 12:52 PM
Lol nice critical response to the actual question

I have already provided my answer in multiple posts. In fact, I wrote information, the. You quoted the post and asked a question which that post already answered.

No, I would not "rather" have either iteration of the Pacers bench over the other one. I said this team is slightly improved from last year, but not enough to win 50 games in a stronger league. I was very clear about all of that, and for all the reasons why. Your question is already answered, no need for me to answer it again.

TheIlladelph16
08-12-2013, 01:02 PM
Well the Topic at hand is "who will win 50+." To say that the Knicks wouldn't make that number would mean.... wait for it..... five games.

Regardless, why is that a crazy statement at 7 games? I can easily see the Knicks not getting to 50 wins.

IndyRealist
08-12-2013, 01:09 PM
Granger is not taking much of Lance's minutes, for the record. He's taking minutes from Gerald Green and Sam Young, and that is a HUGE upgrade. Lance will backup both guard spots, and Hibbert will likely be the only player over 32mpg or so

All-In
08-12-2013, 01:19 PM
I have already provided my answer in multiple posts. In fact, I wrote information, the. You quoted the post and asked a question which that post already answered.

No, I would not "rather" have either iteration of the Pacers bench over the other one. I said this team is slightly improved from last year, but not enough to win 50 games in a stronger league. I was very clear about all of that, and for all the reasons why. Your question is already answered, no need for me to answer it again.

Lol....I just wanted a conformation...pretty simple...thats all...because the Pacers bench defiantly did improve and since the Pacers impediment last year was there bench winning 1 more gm shouldn’t be that hard...and my question was about the specific players on Indy's bench which wasn't answered in your pervious post I hate to say

WoodsyRaps
08-12-2013, 01:29 PM
I'm not quite sure as far as who's going to make it to 50 this year because the season is a grind. I do think the standings will be top heavy this year between teams like Miami, Indiana, Chicago, both NY teams, and the bottom teams like Charlotte and Toronto.

Oh boy, Toronto is being grouped with Charlotte now as guaranteed bottom feeders? lol. Im not going to say they'll win 50 games or anything, but I'll take them as a bottom playoff spot over teams like Detroit and Washington who seem to be popular choices. Curious as to why you think they're bad enough to be assumed last place with Charlotte?

Rockice_8
08-12-2013, 01:43 PM
Wouldn't shock me if 5 teams in the East went for 50+

MIA high 50's with CHI, INDY, BK in the mid 50's with the Knicks in the low 50's.

All-In
08-12-2013, 01:43 PM
I have already provided my answer in multiple posts. In fact, I wrote information, the. You quoted the post and asked a question which that post already answered.

No, I would not "rather" have either iteration of the Pacers bench over the other one. I said this team is slightly improved from last year, but not enough to win 50 games in a stronger league. I was very clear about all of that, and for all the reasons why. Your question is already answered, no need for me to answer it again.

Hibbert was recovering from an injury most of last year…his averages for the first 4 months were 10pts and 7rebs but the last two months were 16pts and 9rebs…that was the Hibbert we saw in the playoffs…you have to take in to account player development when discussing if there going to be a 50 win team…..not just addition and subtractions…Paul George and Hibbert aren’t going to develop into better players???

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 01:49 PM
Lol....I just wanted a conformation...pretty simple...thats all...because the Pacers bench defiantly did improve and since the Pacers impediment last year was there bench winning 1 more gm shouldn’t be that hard...and my question was about the specific players on Indy's bench which wasn't answered in your pervious post I hate to say

Actually, the reality is that beyond the first 8 players in the rotation, there is little impact on winning.

http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/a-half-baked-notion-about-the-difference-between-the-regular-season-and-the-playoffs/

So, I commented on the top 8 rotation guys, and from there I would say your question about specific players become statistically moot. If they got better 9-11, it likely doesn't amount to a 1-win difference, considering out of 50 wins they'd likely only be worth a total of 1 win.

So, that's my answer about the end of rotation guys. Beyond that, I would say I have proven my case in regards to Granger and Scola. Scola is bound to be bad and Granger will have minimal impact when you account for his age, health, and diminishing returns.

So, this team is slightly better than last years. Not because their offseason moves were good (they weren't), but because Granger will have some small impact and their young stars will likely improve.

However, with a weak east getting a little bit stronger and the west getting stronger almost from top to bottom, you have to account for the fact that wins don't come in a vacuum. Wins come at the expense of losses. For more teams to improve, it must mean that more teams must get worse. There is no way around that.

So if teams at the top are winning more, it means teams at the bottom and middle must lose more. If teams at the bottom are winning more, the opposite.

So, it isn't as simple an equation as "they got better, ergo they win more", despite your attempt to boil it down as such. The average number of wins will still be 41. So the question is, did the Pacers improve as much as th rest of the NBA dis on average?

My answer is "definitely not". More teams improved more than the Pacers did, with only a few teams taking steps backwards. Thus, I don't see the Pacers going anywhere. Again, a 47-50 win team, with their improvement being on par with the average improvement around the league.

Again, the question is not "is the team better than last year?" The question is, "is the team better compared to league average than last year?" One last time, my answer is, based on the case I have already made very clear, while this Pacers team did slightly improve from last year, no they did not make any improvements compared to league average, meaning I see them in the same win range, with an outside shot at 50 wins.

Goodness gracious. You'd think I was blasting them based upon the responses I am getting here. I am sorry I didn't drink the old man Scola kool aid and that I am willing to think deeper than adding players equals more wins.

Pacerlive
08-12-2013, 01:50 PM
Hibbert was recovering from an injury most of last year…his averages for the first 4 months were 10pts and 7rebs but the last two months were 16pts and 9rebs…that was the Hibbert we saw in the playoffs…you have to take in to account player development when discussing if there going to be a 50 win team…..not just addition and subtractions…Paul George and Hibbert aren’t going to develop into better players???

This is the problem when you get your head to far up in the stat sheets that you can't make a legit argument that the Pacers can't win one more game and I can guarantee you if DG cost Pacers games he won't be in the starting lineup very long with Frank Vogel as a coach.

Like Indyrealist said DG won't get most of Lance's minutes and defensively the large upgrades to the starting unit was as you stated was an improved Hibbert, PG, a healthy West and HIll starting a full season at pg. ITs kind of hard to understand how Lance rocketed the Pacers to the number one postion all by himself last year.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 02:02 PM
Hibbert was recovering from an injury most of last year…his averages for the first 4 months were 10pts and 7rebs but the last two months were 16pts and 9rebs…that was the Hibbert we saw in the playoffs…you have to take in to account player development when discussing if there going to be a 50 win team…..not just addition and subtractions…Paul George and Hibbert aren’t going to develop into better players???

And the Pacers were also so good in large part to West being awesome and using a career year at age 31. I am sorry to say it, but at 32 players have a very large drop off and decline. I do not expect him to be anywhere near as good and may be where the team sees its largest drop off in wins, which I am suggesting will be neutralized by George, Hill, and Hibbert improving.

http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

So, actually, I am accounting for their progress. Players just don't progress as much, as fast as 32 year old players decline. In fact, it is about 5x less. So, I am suggesting 3 guys improving will make up for 1 guy declining a lot. That's fair and empirically supported.

At least be consistent. You're trying to talk about young players progressing while ignoring actual career progress/decline curves and the reality of an aging West and a finished Scola.

All-In
08-12-2013, 02:04 PM
Actually, the reality is that beyond the first 8 players in the rotation, there is little impact on winning.

http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/a-half-baked-notion-about-the-difference-between-the-regular-season-and-the-playoffs/

So, I commented on the top 8 rotation guys, and from there I would say your question about specific players become statistically moot. If they got better 9-11, it likely doesn't amount to a 1-win difference, considering out of 50 wins they'd likely only be worth a total of 1 win.

So, that's my answer about the end of rotation guys. Beyond that, I would say I have proven my case in regards to Granger and Scola. Scola is bound to be bad and Granger will have minimal impact when you account for his age, health, and diminishing returns.

So, this team is slightly better than last years. Not because their offseason moves were good (they weren't), but because Granger will have some small impact and their young stars will likely improve.

However, with a weak east getting a little bit stronger and the west getting stronger almost from top to bottom, you have to account for the fact that wins don't come in a vacuum. Wins come at the expense of losses. For more teams to improve, it must mean that more teams must get worse. There is no way around that.

So if teams at the top are winning more, it means teams at the bottom and middle must lose more. If teams at the bottom are winning more, the opposite.

So, it isn't as simple an equation as "they got better, ergo they win more", despite your attempt to boil it down as such. The average number of wins will still be 41. So the question is, did the Pacers improve as much as th rest of the NBA dis on average?

My answer is "definitely not". More teams improved more than the Pacers did, with only a few teams taking steps backwards. Thus, I don't see the Pacers going anywhere. Again, a 47-50 win team, with their improvement being on par with the average improvement around the league.

Again, the question is not "is the team better than last year?" The question is, "is the team better compared to league average than last year?" One last time, my answer is, based on the case I have already made very clear, while this Pacers team did slightly improve from last year, no they did not make any improvements compared to league average, meaning I see them in the same win range, with an outside shot at 50 wins.

Goodness gracious. You'd think I was blasting them based upon the responses I am getting here. I am sorry I didn't drink the old man Scola kool aid and that I am willing to think deeper than adding players equals more wins.

Thinking that the regression of West and Scola will drag down the Pacers is funny…because improvements to PG and Hibbert will probably supersede that…to the point where it will hide a bunch of the older player’s deficiencies

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 02:06 PM
This is the problem when you get your head to far up in the stat sheets that you can't make a legit argument that the Pacers can't win one more game and I can guarantee you if DG cost Pacers games he won't be in the starting lineup very long with Frank Vogel as a coach.

Like Indyrealist said DG won't get most of Lance's minutes and defensively the large upgrades to the starting unit was as you stated was an improved Hibbert, PG, a healthy West and HIll starting a full season at pg. ITs kind of hard to understand how Lance rocketed the Pacers to the number one postion all by himself last year.

Wow, I never said he was going to cost them games, nor did I say that Lance was their reason for success. Goodness. I never said, nor suggested, either of those things.

I said, quite clearly, that due to Granger's decline and the affect of diminishing returns due to a fixed 100% usage allotment and 96 minutes at 2/3, Grangers positive impact will not be nearly as high as most people are suggesting. You don't just plug a guy in. There are still only so many possessions, shots, and minutes in a basketball game.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 02:06 PM
Two thoughts:
A number of posters are suggesting a large number of 50+ win teams; but that automatically forces a near-equal number of teams to lose 50+ games. I don't think the West will have 3+ 50+ loss teams; and the East won't have 4+ 50+ loss teams. Given that, the 50+ win teams will have to force significant additional wins from the top teams - not gonna be easy to do.
Thats my feeling as well, it seems like people think this will be a very historic year in terms of upper echelon teams but thats never been the case from my understanding. Even if we think its best for teams to remain either really bad or really good, you invariably get a group of teams that lump up in the middle. Who knows, maybe basketball operations are being run so optimally that this will be the most top heavy season yet. Much more likely a few teams disappoint and dont keep pace.

With regards to Knick fans, the question isn't whether or not you improved from last years core, its about whether you improved ENOUGH to keep pace with teams that honestly weren't that different from you AND have arguably just as much room for internal growth, if not more.




Metta: I watched a good number of Lakers' games last year; and, imo, Metta is DONE! Every time he shot I cringed, especially his 3-pointers. His defense is no longer elite. And his attitude is always a BIG question mark. Putting him on any team with even a single additional "wildcard"; and you're risking BIG trouble. So, IF he plays lots, that means the Knicks are NOT a 50-win team; IF he doesn't play much, it means the Knicks didn't get much by picking him up.

I think hes got value as an 8th man, but I find it sad that the keys to the Knicks improvement are even mentioned with his addition. I get that hes tough, if that instills a defensive mindset in them unseen in some time, I will never doubt Artest again, but I feel like he will do what hes done at every stop, make the offense worse and barely remain a rotation level player in certain situations. Its good that he will have that role in NY when he was clearly overmatched as a starter.


In sum, I don't think the Knicks can get 50 wins; I think they'll be around 45-37; and, if they were in the West, they wouldn't qualify for the playoffs because, imo, there ARE 8 teams better than them in the West. (And I have ZERO against the Knicks either nowadays OR going back to their 1960's teams). Afterall, I was born and raised in New Jersey, not far from N.Y.City; I watched more Knicks games than any other team (except Boston, because I went to 4 years of High School there) and I rooted for them.
Agreed 100%, but I've got low expectations from Melo this year, I know he just had a career year and all, possibly primed to enter his absolute best days as a ball player, but I need to be proven wrong twice in a row before I buy in completely. Sue me.

All-In
08-12-2013, 02:09 PM
And the Pacers were also so good in large part to West being awesome and using a career year at age 31. I am sorry to say it, but at 32 players have a very large drop off and decline. I do not expect him to be anywhere near as good and may be where the team sees its largest drop off in wins, which I am suggesting will be neutralized by George, Hill, and Hibbert improving.

http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

So, actually, I am accounting for their progress. Players just don't progress as much, as fast as 32 year old players decline. In fact, it is about 5x less. So, I am suggesting 3 guys improving will make up for 1 guy declining a lot. That's fair and empirically supported.

At least be consistent. You're trying to talk about young players progressing while ignoring actual career progress/decline curves and the reality of an aging West and a finished Scola.

Is Paul George and Hibbert like most players??? I’m sure David West isn’t going to regress as much as you think to the point it cancels out Hibbert and PG’s improvement

Pacerlive
08-12-2013, 02:11 PM
And the Pacers were also so good in large part to West being awesome and using a career year at age 31. I am sorry to say it, but at 32 players have a very large drop off and decline. I do not expect him to be anywhere near as good and may be where the team sees its largest drop off in wins, which I am suggesting will be neutralized by George, Hill, and Hibbert improving.

http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

So, actually, I am accounting for their progress. Players just don't progress as much, as fast as 32 year old players decline. In fact, it is about 5x less. So, I am suggesting 3 guys improving will make up for 1 guy declining a lot. That's fair and empirically supported.

At least be consistent. You're trying to talk about young players progressing while ignoring actual career progress/decline curves and the reality of an aging West and a finished Scola.

SO implying your logic shouldn't of we have seen a 17% drop off in David West production last year to when he was 24-25? But now I am suppose to see a huge drop off right?

This is where you have to understand that some players can beat the averages becuase their game isn't solely due to their athleticism.

All-In
08-12-2013, 02:17 PM
Wow, I never said he was going to cost them games, nor did I say that Lance was their reason for success. Goodness. I never said, nor suggested, either of those things.

I said, quite clearly, that due to Granger's decline and the affect of diminishing returns due to a fixed 100% usage allotment and 96 minutes at 2/3, Grangers positive impact will not be nearly as high as most people are suggesting. You don't just plug a guy in. There are still only so many possessions, shots, and minutes in a basketball game.

Its all based on how much you think PG and Hibbert will improve compared to West and others decline...being 32 isn’t like 40 lol he still has 1-2 pretty soild years left and for what the Pacers need Scola to do is perfect because most of his career hes been a starter avg 30MPG now he’ll come off the bench and get like 20MPG…predictive stats can’t measure how he'll do in that kind of situation….Scola played for the Suns last year so of course his stats aren't that impressive..did u watch him play?...I did and trust me he isn't washed up lol....he is a lifetime 50% from the floor...thats part what the Pacers needed

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 02:20 PM
Is Paul George and Hibbert like most players??? I’m sure David West isn’t going to regress as much as you think to the point it cancels out Hibbert and PG’s improvement

No, I am not necessarily saying that. I am saying that West will definitely decline and, unfortunately, it could possibly be steeper than expected compared to last year. I am also saying that 3 young players will likely improve. The "how much" on all of these players cannot be known. There is a lot in play.

However, what we do know about how players age, my suggestion that 3 very good young players and one good young player combined will improve enough to make up for West, Scola, and Granger declining seems fair.

Pacerlive
08-12-2013, 02:23 PM
Wow, I never said he was going to cost them games, nor did I say that Lance was their reason for success. Goodness. I never said, nor suggested, either of those things.

I said, quite clearly, that due to Granger's decline and the affect of diminishing returns due to a fixed 100% usage allotment and 96 minutes at 2/3, Grangers positive impact will not be nearly as high as most people are suggesting. You don't just plug a guy in. There are still only so many possessions, shots, and minutes in a basketball game.

I completely understand you don't plug in a guy and get X amount of points. That is clear but as a team chemistry stand point DG understands his new role as either a off the bench guy or as the 4th or 5th option in the starting line up. IMO PG could use a lower usage rate and Danny will be effecitive at limiting the double team from Hibbert and West.

Health is always the caviate but we just disagree on how the Pacers will progress as a starting unit and the impact of the bench play.

By conviential logic no one had the Pacers as a 49 win team last year so I am sure progression and regression stats all prove your point that they will again be a sub 50 win team since everyone knows that everyone got better last year and no one got worse. :clap:

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 02:27 PM
I completely understand you don't plug in a guy and get X amount of points. That is clear but as a team chemistry stand point DG understands his new role as either a off the bench guy or as the 4th or 5th option in the starting line up. IMO PG could use a lower usage rate and Danny will be effecitive at limiting the double team from Hibbert and West.

Health is always the caviate but we just disagree on how the Pacers will progress as a starting unit and the impact of the bench play.

By conviential logic no one had the Pacers as a 49 win team last year so I am sure progression and regression stats all prove your point that they will again be a sub 50 win team since everyone knows that everyone got better last year and no one got worse. :clap:

Let me be clear. Some teams did get worse. Knicks and Lakers for example. I don't think enough teams did, however.

nycericanguy
08-12-2013, 02:30 PM
With regards to Knick fans, the question isn't whether or not you improved from last years core, its about whether you improved ENOUGH to keep pace with teams that honestly weren't that different from you AND have arguably just as much room for internal growth, if not more.

Knicks were the #2 seed, not the other way around. The question is did CHI, IND & BK improve enough to close the 5-10 game gap?

As far as keeping pace, well NY struggled a lot last year against the 3 teams that everyone is saying improved so much, IND, BK & CHI. Knicks were 4-8 last year against those teams, unless you're thinking they are going to now go 0-12, I don't see how their win loss record will be affected much. Other division teams like PHI & BOS got worse too.

Knicks are much better suited this year to deal with injuries though, and we all know they had a TON last year. They quietly got a lot younger and deeper this year which should help. I predicted 54 wins last year and was spot on, I have them at 55 next year.

All-In
08-12-2013, 03:01 PM
No, I am not necessarily saying that. I am saying that West will definitely decline and, unfortunately, it could possibly be steeper than expected compared to last year. I am also saying that 3 young players will likely improve. The "how much" on all of these players cannot be known. There is a lot in play.

However, what we do know about how players age, my suggestion that 3 very good young players and one good young player combined will improve enough to make up for West, Scola, and Granger declining seems fair.

I do like your “player age is like milk” article but predicting progression and regression isn’t as easy as just looking up a stat for it and whatever that stat says must and will happen…a lot of players beat that statistic…there are a lot of variables that goes into player development

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 03:06 PM
I do like your “player age is like milk” article but predicting progression and regression isn’t as easy as just looking up a stat for it and whatever that stat says must and will happen…a lot of players beat that statistic…there are a lot of variables that goes into player development

Isn't that what I said? :confused:

Chronz
08-12-2013, 03:07 PM
Wow, I never said he was going to cost them games, nor did I say that Lance was their reason for success. Goodness. I never said, nor suggested, either of those things.

I said, quite clearly, that due to Granger's decline and the affect of diminishing returns due to a fixed 100% usage allotment and 96 minutes at 2/3, Grangers positive impact will not be nearly as high as most people are suggesting. You don't just plug a guy in. There are still only so many possessions, shots, and minutes in a basketball game.

The Pacers were horrendous offensively, if Granger can provide any semblance of floor spacing it will be of benefit to their post game. Just depends on how well he defends.

And as others mentioned, much relies on the health of their giant, he wasn't healthy to start the year, PG was struggling in a vastly new role (which wound up paying dividends by seasons end) so hes definitely more acclimated (besides, he has historically played better with Granger on the court). Those are 3 positive offensive developments that aren't reflected in last years rating. Unless you are of the belief that 2nd half trends are never relevant, particularly given that context, you cant just use last season as a projection for this upcoming season.

Relying purely on statistics is foolish, if only because there are alot of credible projection systems that can come to wildly different conclusions.

Whats more worrying is that they relied on their starting lineup so much last year, most teams dont get to enjoy such pristine health. Its reminiscent of the Pistons that had their starting lineup in tact for most of their dominance. If you feel whatever system you're using wont be influenced by these external factors so be it, but there is reason to believe otherwise.

I think the Pacers win 50 comfortably, I just cant see Hibbert struggling with his efficiency the way he did this past year, and I think his foul woes are a thing of the past as well.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 03:18 PM
Knicks were the #2 seed, not the other way around.
They were barely better than the Pacers tho, and you could argue that was only a result of the poor start due to the health of Hibbs and inexperience of PG. They proved their superiority in the playoffs thats for sure.


The question is did CHI, IND & BK improve enough to close the 5-10 game gap?
With regards to BK and CHI yes, but Indy was right there with you, the gap in efficiency was incredibly small.


As far as keeping pace, well NY struggled a lot last year against the 3 teams that everyone is saying improved so much, IND, BK & CHI. Knicks were 4-8 last year against those teams, unless you're thinking they are going to now go 0-12, I don't see how their win loss record will be affected much. Other division teams like PHI & BOS got worse too.
By making this argument you're foolishly assuming the records against all other teams will be identical. So basically the Knicks can expect to win the same games, against the same opponents. Sorry but I cant get on that trolly.


Knicks are much better suited this year to deal with injuries though, and we all know they had a TON last year. They quietly got a lot younger and deeper this year which should help. I predicted 54 wins last year and was spot on, I have them at 55 next year.
We shall see .

JasonJohnHorn
08-12-2013, 03:18 PM
BK
CHI
IND
GSW
HOU

Those are the obvious choices.. I'll agree with them. But I'll go with a couple of less obvious choices:

DET (will be hard playing in the same division as CHI and IND)
MIN
And maybe ATL... Brand and Milsap were nice pick ups... I think they will fit better ATL than Smith did.

nycericanguy
08-12-2013, 03:24 PM
They were barely better than the Pacers tho, and you could argue that was only a result of the poor start due to the health of Hibbs and inexperience of PG. They proved their superiority in the playoffs thats for sure.


With regards to BK and CHI yes, but Indy was right there with you, the gap in efficiency was incredibly small.


By making this argument you're foolishly assuming the records against all other teams will be identical. So basically the Knicks can expect to win the same games, against the same opponents. Sorry but I cant get on that trolly.


We shall see .

They won 5 more games than IND, and as for the playoffs, let's not act like IND blew NY away. Knicks were up late in the 4th of game 6 despite JR shooting 26% in that series. I liked our chances at home in game 7 had they been able to hold on in game 6.

I wasn't assuming that at all, of course every year is different and of course it will vary. They may not go 0-4 against CHI next year but they also may not go 2-0 against the Spurs... No one is silly enough to suggest every year will be an exact replica, but my point was there's no reason to suggest that IND, BK & CHI getting better will have a huge impact, if any on NY's W/L record.

Rockice_8
08-12-2013, 03:28 PM
They were barely better than the Pacers tho, and you could argue that was only a result of the poor start due to the health of Hibbs and inexperience of PG. They proved their superiority in the playoffs thats for sure.


With regards to BK and CHI yes, but Indy was right there with you, the gap in efficiency was incredibly small.


By making this argument you're foolishly assuming the records against all other teams will be identical. So basically the Knicks can expect to win the same games, against the same opponents. Sorry but I cant get on that trolly.


We shall see .

When did INDY become some powerhouse team? They won the same amount of games as BK did and that was with a brand new team just thrown together. INDY was more established and D-Will was hurt if you want to play that card for Hibbert.

Just cause they worked a crappy Hawks team and caught the Knicks after they completely fell apart doesn't mean they are some lock for the ECF again. This Pacer love is getting a little crazy here. They weren't some 60 win team last year. Plus the Nets swept them so lets take it easy here with the Pacers. I like the moves they did but they aren't some new dynasty.

lamzoka
08-12-2013, 03:47 PM
The Knicks are definitely worse than they were last year. Adding Bargnani alone makes you worse. Just ask any Raptors fan.

It's not that we're haters, it's just looking at it from an unbiased perspective.

you are a knick hater, but its all good. we heard this **** last year too.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 03:49 PM
They won 5 more games than IND
But efficiency wise (the more accurate barometer for these type of things) it was the equivalent of a single game difference. Their superior efficiency combined with that ascending core is what made me choose them despite the Knicks having home court.


and as for the playoffs, let's not act like IND blew NY away.
They dont have to. That they are already better is the point.



I wasn't assuming that at all, of course every year is different and of course it will vary. They may not go 0-4 against CHI next year but they also may not go 2-0 against the Spurs... No one is silly enough to suggest every year will be an exact replica, but my point was there's no reason to suggest that IND, BK & CHI getting better will have a huge impact, if any on NY's W/L record.
Yea and when you add up all the things you feel they may or may not do, they wind up with whatever number of wins you've conjured up in your head. We all do that to some degree is what Im saying. I just think Indy is just better and that Rose will propel Chicago to a higher level as well. BKN is more polarizing but I love their talent mesh and depth, I have them ahead as well.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 03:55 PM
When did INDY become some powerhouse team? They won the same amount of games as BK did and that was with a brand new team just thrown together.
Yea but Indy played with superior efficiency.


INDY was more established and D-Will was hurt if you want to play that card for Hibbert.
I dont have as much optimism with players who are "injured" because they are out of shape rather than playing through a broken wrist or something. But yes I suppose thats a good point.

Just cause they worked a crappy Hawks team and caught the Knicks after they completely fell apart doesn't mean they are some lock for the ECF again. This Pacer love is getting a little crazy here. They weren't some 60 win team last year. Plus the Nets swept them so lets take it easy here with the Pacers. I like the moves they did but they aren't some new dynasty.

nycericanguy
08-12-2013, 04:15 PM
[QUOTE=Chronz;26873576]But efficiency wise (the more accurate barometer for these type of things) it was the equivalent of a single game difference. Their superior efficiency combined with that ascending core is what made me choose them despite the Knicks having home court.


They dont have to. That they are already better is the point.


Yea and when you add up all the things you feel they may or may not do, they wind up with whatever number of wins you've conjured up in your head. We all do that to some degree is what Im saying. I just think Indy is just better and that Rose will propel Chicago to a higher level as well. BKN is more polarizing but I love their talent mesh and depth, I have them ahead as well.

Your first point is misleading. Knicks had a TON of injuries last year, like every single starter missed at least 15 games, they were without Felton for 6+ weeks, Shump missed most of the year... it goes on and on.

IND outside of Granger didn't have any real injuries.

So it's actually telling that despite that NY was still above IND.

Now, I will say NY's roster is just more injury prone, so I'll expect some more injuries this year. But with a bench of MWP, Prigs, Beno, JR, Kmart, Amare, Tyler, & Hardaway, there shouldn't be as drastic a dropoff this year when the injuries do hit.

You stated IND proved their "superiority"... I'm just saying it was a close series that could have gone either way. Series are often won on 1 or 2 plays, I wouldn't say that series proved they are superior.

IndyRealist
08-12-2013, 05:33 PM
Wadekobe, I'm a huge proponent of stats in general and WP in particular. I have to disagree with two of your main points, though, and both because of context.

1) yes, in general only the top 8 players contribute wins, and the top 6 in the playoffs. However, teams also routinely shorten their rotations in the playoffs, so it is in effect a self fulfilling prophecy. By concentrating the minutes into less players, you are guaranteeing that no deep bench player gets enough minutes to affect the outcome (which can be good).

The Pacers do shorten their rotation, but from 11 to 10 as opposed from 9 to 7 or 8. In the playoffs, they play a full time backup at every position to keep from getting winded. Thus the potential for impact is there and depth matters.

2. Again, as a rule players age badly. WoW talks about average drop off. In specific cases (Nash for instance) players do not follow the average curve. Given that West had a career year last year, and that his game is not predicated on raw athleticism, it's not unreasonable to believe he'll be a solid contributor next year.

Two things are true, at some point he will decline, and when he does he'll drop off a cliff. These are universal, but applying a generalization to a specific case is a fallacy. A 3yr deal is virtually a guaranteed overpay at some point, but that contract was not just about basketball.

IndyRealist
08-12-2013, 05:46 PM
I will also say that Granger will no longer have to force low percentage, isolation plays anymore. That is George's responibility now. As a spot up 3pt shooter, Granger is likely to still be very effective. If anything, his efficiency will improve by not trying to take people off the dribble.

And again, he is taking Green's and Young's minutes. Lance is unlikely to see a decline in minutes and will probably see a dramatic increase in usage. And given the crowded backcourt and the age of West/Scola, Granger will probably get mins at PF as well.

Pacerlive
08-12-2013, 06:45 PM
[QUOTE=Chronz;26873442]

Your first point is misleading. Knicks had a TON of injuries last year, like every single starter missed at least 15 games, they were without Felton for 6+ weeks, Shump missed most of the year... it goes on and on.

IND outside of Granger didn't have any real injuries.

So it's actually telling that despite that NY was still above IND.

Now, I will say NY's roster is just more injury prone, so I'll expect some more injuries this year. But with a bench of MWP, Prigs, Beno, JR, Kmart, Amare, Tyler, & Hardaway, there shouldn't be as drastic a dropoff this year when the injuries do hit.

You stated IND proved their "superiority"... I'm just saying it was a close series that could have gone either way. Series are often won on 1 or 2 plays, I wouldn't say that series proved they are superior.

I like the Knicks bench but they are always hurt and that makes it difficult to have some semblance of chemistry. Bargs has been hurt the last two years. Chandler now has a bulging disc and Stat has bad wheels. About the only person I don't expect to get hurt right now is Shumpert and he is one year away from that ACL injury.

Combine that with JRs terrible post season run the past 3 years I just can't bet on the Knicks in the post season.

WadeKobe
08-12-2013, 06:50 PM
Wadekobe, I'm a huge proponent of stats in general and WP in particular. I have to disagree with two of your main points, though, and both because of context.

1) yes, in general only the top 8 players contribute wins, and the top 6 in the playoffs. However, teams also routinely shorten their rotations in the playoffs, so it is in effect a self fulfilling prophecy. By concentrating the minutes into less players, you are guaranteeing that no deep bench player gets enough minutes to affect the outcome (which can be good).

The Pacers do shorten their rotation, but from 11 to 10 as opposed from 9 to 7 or 8. In the playoffs, they play a full time backup at every position to keep from getting winded. Thus the potential for impact is there and depth matters.

2. Again, as a rule players age badly. WoW talks about average drop off. In specific cases (Nash for instance) players do not follow the average curve. Given that West had a career year last year, and that his game is not predicated on raw athleticism, it's not unreasonable to believe he'll be a solid contributor next year.

Two things are true, at some point he will decline, and when he does he'll drop off a cliff. These are universal, but applying a generalization to a specific case is a fallacy. A 3yr deal is virtually a guaranteed overpay at some point, but that contract was not just about basketball.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying you can't win 50, nor am I saying I "know" any of this. I am just trying to make some educated inferences.

So, I am not bothered by disagreement. I just take issue with the tone of response I received or a while that suggested I was being unfair to IND. I don't think I was.

valade16
08-12-2013, 07:01 PM
Your first point is misleading. Knicks had a TON of injuries last year, like every single starter missed at least 15 games, they were without Felton for 6+ weeks, Shump missed most of the year... it goes on and on.

IND outside of Granger didn't have any real injuries.

So it's actually telling that despite that NY was still above IND.

Now, I will say NY's roster is just more injury prone, so I'll expect some more injuries this year. But with a bench of MWP, Prigs, Beno, JR, Kmart, Amare, Tyler, & Hardaway, there shouldn't be as drastic a dropoff this year when the injuries do hit.

You stated IND proved their "superiority"... I'm just saying it was a close series that could have gone either way. Series are often won on 1 or 2 plays, I wouldn't say that series proved they are superior.

To the first bolded, to be fair that's a pretty significant injury.

To the second bolded, all those names are better name brands than they are actual production on the court at this point.

I think the Knicks will get to 50 games, but I still think they're behind Indy, Brooklyn, and Chicago at this point.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 07:14 PM
To the first bolded, to be fair that's a pretty significant injury.
More than anything, the injury to Hibbert clearly effected him. That should count too.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 07:14 PM
Your first point is misleading. Knicks had a TON of injuries last year, like every single starter missed at least 15 games, they were without Felton for 6+ weeks, Shump missed most of the year... it goes on and on.

IND outside of Granger didn't have any real injuries.

So it's actually telling that despite that NY was still above IND.

Now, I will say NY's roster is just more injury prone, so I'll expect some more injuries this year. But with a bench of MWP, Prigs, Beno, JR, Kmart, Amare, Tyler, & Hardaway, there shouldn't be as drastic a dropoff this year when the injuries do hit.

You stated IND proved their "superiority"... I'm just saying it was a close series that could have gone either way. Series are often won on 1 or 2 plays, I wouldn't say that series proved they are superior.

Got it. Should be an interesting season to reflect on

Pablonovi
08-12-2013, 07:40 PM
Forecast: 2013-14 East standings


Originally Published: August 12, 2013
ESPN.com

Miami HeatIssac Baldizon/Getty ImagesOur panel of experts sees the defending champs finishing at the top of the East standings in 2013-14.


Our annual Summer Forecast series is back!

OUR NEW PREDICTION ENGINE

These Summer Forecast predictions powered by ESPN Forecast.


Over the next two weeks, we'll roll out our predictions for how each team will do this season, as well as the 2013-14 Rookie of the Year, Best Newcomer, Worst Newcomer, MVP, conference champions and NBA champs. We'll also examine which teams will make the biggest turnarounds this season and which teams could be in for the most turmoil.

For our results, we surveyed our ESPN Forecast panel on each topic.

Let's begin with a look at the conference that features the reigning NBA champs. We'll announce one team every half-hour (from 1 to 15), starting at noon ET.

To participate in the discussion and perhaps get your opinion published on this page, #ESPNForecast is the Twitter hashtag to use. Or you can just follow along @ESPNNBA.

Here we go ...

RANK TEAM W L PCT '13 W '13 L '13 PCT

1 Miami Heat 60 22 .732 66 16 .805
@DParikh91: Seems fair enough. The Heat might take a step back this year, depending on Wade's health, but don't count them out.

@kingscorpio_: It's the Miami Heat and everybody else (it doesn't matter what the next 7 seeds are).

2 Chicago Bulls 55 27 .670 45 37 .549
@MrGet2DaPoint: With the return of D-Rose the Bulls are fit to be #2 in the East and contend against the Heat.

@joey9087: Bulls are a good choice, but I think Indiana will have a chance to finish in 2nd or 1st. Miami may rest Wade a lot.

3 Indiana Pacers 54 28 .659 49 32 .605
@primetime2832: @ESPNNBA has quite the battle in the Central Division. Bulls with 55 wins and 2nd in the East. Pacers with 54 and 3rd.

@ramonashelburne: For the record, I had the Indiana Pacers in that No. 2 spot, ahead of the Bulls.

4 Brooklyn Nets 53 29 .646 49 33 .598
@KylePagan01: Brooklyn should be higher. One of the best benches along with a top-flight lineup.

@m23jumpman911: The Nets have all the talent in the world, but need time to mesh. 4th in a loaded East seems about right.

5 New York Knicks 48 34 .585 54 28 .659
@RSDanger18: New York would go crazy to have a playoff series between the Nets and Knicks!

@AndrewLynch: It's not that I don't trust the Knicks. It's that I do trust Vogel, Thibs and KG. Also, I don't trust the Knicks.

6 Atlanta Hawks 40 42 .488 44 38 .537
@ChrisJandB: Maybe I'm being overly optimistic about the Hawks but I don't see them finishing with a losing record.

@Steve_Scafidi: 6,7, and 8 seed finishing under .500 in the East? That's pretty harsh.

7 Washington Wizards* 39 43 .476 29 53 .354
@Based_Dan: It's John Wall's time to shine in DC. If Wall and Beal stay healthy they can make a run for the 7th spot.

8 Cleveland Cavaliers* 39 43 .476 24 58 .293
@SkylerJGilbert: The Cavs have one of the youngest cores in the NBA. If they can develop under Mike Brown, a 6 or 7 seed is definitely possible.

@EginHoxha: if bynum can produce something they can easily be higher

9 Detroit Pistons 38 44 .463 29 53 .354
@AndrewLynch: Apparently I wasn't alone in not having the Pistons in the playoffs.

@BugattiBoyAddy: Y'all crazy if y'all don't believe the Detroit Piston is making the playoffs next year. The Bucks wont make it!!!

10 Toronto Raptors 33 49 .402 34 48 .415
@GreyhoundsKc: Toronto could scare some teams, but there are too many teams better than them in the East for them to contend. 10 sounds right!

@D0UBLE_HELIX: Raptors were a .500 team with Rudy Gay. Only had him for 33 games. Valanciunas looks much improved. How can they be worse?

11 Milwaukee Bucks 31 51 .378 38 44 .463
@Bucksketball: Bucks fans would be much happier with this season's Bucks finishing 11 than they were with last season's Bucks finishing 8.

@SleepyJordan: Despite overhauling its roster, MIL is still stuck on the treadmill of mediocrity. Will not contend, nor receive a high pick.

12 Boston Celtics 29 53 .354 41 40 .506
@DCWLN: So Boston has Rondo's ACL, the Ghost of Gerald Wallace, a bunch of gunners and a rookie head coach. No way they get 29 wins.

@MyNaMe_isToBy: i believe Boston will surprise ppl this year. Never doubt Rondo

13Charlotte Bobcats 26 56 .317 21 61 .256
@HopefulHeismanP: no way they only win 26

@Dubey23: Bobcats surprise people, finish 8-10 in the East, Zeller a darkhorse for ROY

14 Orlando Magic 24 58 .293 20 62 .244
@DatKidEman: Wiggins here we come!

15 Philadelphia 76ers 20 62 .244 34 48 .415
@HoopsPhilly: Can the Sixers just fast forward to Lottery Day and Draft Day?


* Teams tied in win total are ordered by decimal rankings from our experts' predictions.

- - - - - - -
My 4 First Quick Responses:
1) I agree with their Top 5 Rankings and their suggested/predicted records (I wasn't far off about the Knicks with my 45-37);
2) They have 5 East Conf. teams with 50+ losses (wow; the East sucks maybe worse than ever);
3) They have 3 East Conf. teams making the playoffs WITH LOSING RECCORDS (wow; the East sucks maybe worse than ever).
4) Their West Conf. rankings come out tomorrow; and there are gonna have to be a number of West Conf. teams that will both be:
a) far superior to playoff-qualifying East Conf teams (with losing records to boot); and
b) not qualifying for the playoffs despite having winning records (wow, how unfair).

This is EXACTLY why I started by "Hey Commissioner, How About Letting The 16 Best Teams Get Into The Playoffs" thread.

29$JerZ
08-12-2013, 07:43 PM
5th seed? Knicks will still win the division in all likelihood.

dalton749
08-12-2013, 08:27 PM
the only way the raps get worse is if they are headed for 8 seed and decide to blow it up
33 wins probably wont be an option for the new management
its either 42+ or under 30, anything in between and they are doing everything they said they wouldn't this offseason

Mr.SmackYoMama
08-12-2013, 08:48 PM
I don't have to ask a Raptors fan ****. I bet NJ, got worse when they got VC, or Miami got worse when they got Bosh. Not that there is an even comparison with Bargnani - but Toronto is a hell hole.

LMAO!!!! Sorry bro if you're comparing Bargs to VC and Bosh you are smokin way too much LoL. Knicks got worse deal with it!

Chacarron
08-12-2013, 08:51 PM
The Lakers are going 73-9.

Hawkeye15
08-13-2013, 12:13 PM
Forecast: 2013-14 East standings


Originally Published: August 12, 2013
ESPN.com

Miami HeatIssac Baldizon/Getty ImagesOur panel of experts sees the defending champs finishing at the top of the East standings in 2013-14.


Our annual Summer Forecast series is back!

OUR NEW PREDICTION ENGINE

These Summer Forecast predictions powered by ESPN Forecast.


Over the next two weeks, we'll roll out our predictions for how each team will do this season, as well as the 2013-14 Rookie of the Year, Best Newcomer, Worst Newcomer, MVP, conference champions and NBA champs. We'll also examine which teams will make the biggest turnarounds this season and which teams could be in for the most turmoil.

For our results, we surveyed our ESPN Forecast panel on each topic.

Let's begin with a look at the conference that features the reigning NBA champs. We'll announce one team every half-hour (from 1 to 15), starting at noon ET.

To participate in the discussion and perhaps get your opinion published on this page, #ESPNForecast is the Twitter hashtag to use. Or you can just follow along @ESPNNBA.

Here we go ...

RANK TEAM W L PCT '13 W '13 L '13 PCT

1 Miami Heat 60 22 .732 66 16 .805
@DParikh91: Seems fair enough. The Heat might take a step back this year, depending on Wade's health, but don't count them out.

@kingscorpio_: It's the Miami Heat and everybody else (it doesn't matter what the next 7 seeds are).

2 Chicago Bulls 55 27 .670 45 37 .549
@MrGet2DaPoint: With the return of D-Rose the Bulls are fit to be #2 in the East and contend against the Heat.

@joey9087: Bulls are a good choice, but I think Indiana will have a chance to finish in 2nd or 1st. Miami may rest Wade a lot.

3 Indiana Pacers 54 28 .659 49 32 .605
@primetime2832: @ESPNNBA has quite the battle in the Central Division. Bulls with 55 wins and 2nd in the East. Pacers with 54 and 3rd.

@ramonashelburne: For the record, I had the Indiana Pacers in that No. 2 spot, ahead of the Bulls.

4 Brooklyn Nets 53 29 .646 49 33 .598
@KylePagan01: Brooklyn should be higher. One of the best benches along with a top-flight lineup.

@m23jumpman911: The Nets have all the talent in the world, but need time to mesh. 4th in a loaded East seems about right.

5 New York Knicks 48 34 .585 54 28 .659
@RSDanger18: New York would go crazy to have a playoff series between the Nets and Knicks!

@AndrewLynch: It's not that I don't trust the Knicks. It's that I do trust Vogel, Thibs and KG. Also, I don't trust the Knicks.

6 Atlanta Hawks 40 42 .488 44 38 .537
@ChrisJandB: Maybe I'm being overly optimistic about the Hawks but I don't see them finishing with a losing record.

@Steve_Scafidi: 6,7, and 8 seed finishing under .500 in the East? That's pretty harsh.

7 Washington Wizards* 39 43 .476 29 53 .354
@Based_Dan: It's John Wall's time to shine in DC. If Wall and Beal stay healthy they can make a run for the 7th spot.

8 Cleveland Cavaliers* 39 43 .476 24 58 .293
@SkylerJGilbert: The Cavs have one of the youngest cores in the NBA. If they can develop under Mike Brown, a 6 or 7 seed is definitely possible.

@EginHoxha: if bynum can produce something they can easily be higher

9 Detroit Pistons 38 44 .463 29 53 .354
@AndrewLynch: Apparently I wasn't alone in not having the Pistons in the playoffs.

@BugattiBoyAddy: Y'all crazy if y'all don't believe the Detroit Piston is making the playoffs next year. The Bucks wont make it!!!

10 Toronto Raptors 33 49 .402 34 48 .415
@GreyhoundsKc: Toronto could scare some teams, but there are too many teams better than them in the East for them to contend. 10 sounds right!

@D0UBLE_HELIX: Raptors were a .500 team with Rudy Gay. Only had him for 33 games. Valanciunas looks much improved. How can they be worse?

11 Milwaukee Bucks 31 51 .378 38 44 .463
@Bucksketball: Bucks fans would be much happier with this season's Bucks finishing 11 than they were with last season's Bucks finishing 8.

@SleepyJordan: Despite overhauling its roster, MIL is still stuck on the treadmill of mediocrity. Will not contend, nor receive a high pick.

12 Boston Celtics 29 53 .354 41 40 .506
@DCWLN: So Boston has Rondo's ACL, the Ghost of Gerald Wallace, a bunch of gunners and a rookie head coach. No way they get 29 wins.

@MyNaMe_isToBy: i believe Boston will surprise ppl this year. Never doubt Rondo

13Charlotte Bobcats 26 56 .317 21 61 .256
@HopefulHeismanP: no way they only win 26

@Dubey23: Bobcats surprise people, finish 8-10 in the East, Zeller a darkhorse for ROY

14 Orlando Magic 24 58 .293 20 62 .244
@DatKidEman: Wiggins here we come!

15 Philadelphia 76ers 20 62 .244 34 48 .415
@HoopsPhilly: Can the Sixers just fast forward to Lottery Day and Draft Day?


* Teams tied in win total are ordered by decimal rankings from our experts' predictions.

- - - - - - -
My 4 First Quick Responses:
1) I agree with their Top 5 Rankings and their suggested/predicted records (I wasn't far off about the Knicks with my 45-37);
2) They have 5 East Conf. teams with 50+ losses (wow; the East sucks maybe worse than ever);
3) They have 3 East Conf. teams making the playoffs WITH LOSING RECCORDS (wow; the East sucks maybe worse than ever).
4) Their West Conf. rankings come out tomorrow; and there are gonna have to be a number of West Conf. teams that will both be:
a) far superior to playoff-qualifying East Conf teams (with losing records to boot); and
b) not qualifying for the playoffs despite having winning records (wow, how unfair).

This is EXACTLY why I started by "Hey Commissioner, How About Letting The 16 Best Teams Get Into The Playoffs" thread.

I noticed that too, they predict 3 east teams making the playoffs with sub .500 records. While these are just guesses at this point, it shows why the east is so weak. They might be good way up top, but the bulk of the east is so meh.

valade16
08-13-2013, 12:34 PM
I noticed that too, they predict 3 east teams making the playoffs with sub .500 records. While these are just guesses at this point, it shows why the east is so weak. They might be good way up top, but the bulk of the east is so meh.

Of thoes predictions I see the Pistons and Hawks switching. I think the Pistons are a terrible fit as team pieces go, but there is a lot of talent there, and talent can win you games.

Hawkeye15
08-13-2013, 12:49 PM
Of thoes predictions I see the Pistons and Hawks switching. I think the Pistons are a terrible fit as team pieces go, but there is a lot of talent there, and talent can win you games.

agree 100%

todu82
08-13-2013, 01:01 PM
Golden State, Chicago and Houston.

EL_MACHETE
08-13-2013, 02:11 PM
Detroit Pistons - 50-53 wins

Pablonovi
08-14-2013, 09:21 AM
RANK TEAM W L PCT '13 W '13 L '13 PCT


1 Oklahoma City Thunder 58 24 .707 60 22 .732
@wibo8: No big moves in the offseason? No worries, Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka is all we need to top the West!

@mJaYs3: OKC has no depth, they lost Kevin Martin and did not fill that piece. If anything they got worse this offseason.

2 Los Angeles Clippers 57 25 .695 56 26 .683
@Hmkhitar: The acquisition of shooters JJ & Dudley is a dream come true for CP3, he now can make teams pay when they crash on his drives.

@nicopatella: Clippers practically haven't change the roster. Only a few changes, then why would they be so high in the ESPNForecast?

3 San Antonio Spurs 55 27 .671 58 24 .707
@JordanMay1: I love it!! Spurs under the radar yet again. Defending Western Conf. champs and a better/experienced supporting cast.

@GreyhoundsKc: Spurs were 26 seconds, a made free throw or Ray Allen not hitting the shot, away from a 5th ring!! How are they this low?

4 Houston Rockets 53 29 .646 45 37 .549
@James_Mao35: Best C in the league? Arguably best SG in the league? I smell Shaq-Kobe 2.0. Without the feud, hopefully.

@MishrigiG: Rockets are a bit too high, don't have the depth and experience like the Grizzles or Warriors.

5 Memphis Grizzlies 51 31 .622 56 26 .683
@TylerGee_95: Memphis over the Warriors? Memphis only got to Conf. finals cause of no Westbrook. Warriors are deep. Also #SplashBros

@Aleksandr901: Looks like a lotta people are gonna be shocked when Memphis gets home court. #weinthemud

6 Golden State Warriors 50 32 .610 47 35 .573
@SherwoodStrauss: "Warriors fans are mad about a predicted 50 win season" is something I thought I'd never say.

@jamesnewlin: What's crazy is that in a loaded West, the Warriors, even with another huge piece in Iguodala, could still be 6th.

7 Denver Nuggets 43 39 .524 57 25 .695
@Tyfrees: Denver at 7 seed is reasonable in the stacked west, but 43 wins? Losing Iggy, Nuggs are still good for 48-50 wins.

@SheaEhlert: When Denver doesn't make the playoffs ppl will realize how important coaching actually is in the NBA! KARL = Legend

8 Minnesota Timberwolves 40 42 .488 31 51 .378
@DeeshotKofi: I agree with fighting for 8th seed in Western Conference, but my fav team is NOT having another losing season.

@iamjamesbedell: Don't know what's scarier: the West's 8th seed with a losing record, or the West's 8th seed as Minnesota.

9 Dallas Mavericks 39 43 .476 41 41 .500
@peman3232: Mavs have potential to be one of the best offensive teams in the league. Defense doesn't look as promising.

@JabberWalker: Dallas at 9? Didn't we just see last season what happens to a terrible defensive backcourt in the NBA?

10 Portland Trail Blazers 38 44 .463 33 49 .402
@rydstein: Blazers improved their league-worst bench but still can't get into the playoffs... life sure is tough out West.

@T_Rey14: Blazers at 10 is laughable. With the new roster additions they're going to be the team that nobody wants to play come playoffs.

11 New Orleans Pelicans 37 45 .451 27 55 .329
@cmac81: Pelicans could be one of the best defensive teams in the NBA with Davis, Jrue and Gordon. Gonna be in the battle for the 7/8th seed.

@KennedyCourtney: If Anthony Davis is the real deal they can easily be the 7th seed. 18/11/2.5 blks written all over him.

12 Los Angeles Lakers 36 46 .439 45 37 .549
@kobebryant: 12th I see.

@mikewu43: #ESPNForecast is predicting a lot of losses for the Lakers. Most of those losses will probably be on national television.

13 Utah Jazz 32 50 .390 43 39 .524
@salexwebb: Jazz starting 5 all lottery picks; oldest is 23. Six first-round picks in the next few drafts. Future is bright; present is rough.

@ratdogz: According to #ESPNForecast the Jazz are only 8 games from the 8th seed. If they can get anything from their bench, they could be a surprise.

14 Sacramento Kings 30 52 .366 28 54 .341
@ArmanditoV: I say 32 wins. RT @ESPNNBA: ESPN Summer Forecast, No. 14 in West: Sacramento Kings (30-52). #ESPNForecast

@Sir_adel: @ESPNNBA: ESPN Summer Forecast, No. 14 in West: Sacramento Kings (30-52). We ain't last thoooo.

15 Phoenix Suns 22 60 .269 25 57 .305
@FatHunty: Give Dragic and Bledsoe a year to work out their roles together and then draft Wiggins? Future looks bright in Phoenix. #ESPNForecast

@Suns: Everyone knows the Summer Forecast in Phoenix is always Sunny. "@ESPNNBA: ESPN Summer Forecast, No. 15 in West: Phoenix Suns"

To toot my horn tiny bit; I predicted 3+ West and 4+ East Teams to get 50+ losses; and ESPN has 3 and 5.

Pablonovi
08-14-2013, 11:50 AM
All of a sudden I feel like this ESPN prediction is "just what the doctor ordered". Why?
First, no one can know (months before the first game of the season) what the Lakers' injury-recovery progress curve will be like on opening day and in the first 2 months: (Oct-)Nov-Dec. Almost no one will question that THE KEY "curve" in this regard is Kobe's. It IS unreasonable to predict NOW that he's gonna play 75 some games at the superstar level.

So this record and ranking seems reasonably fair to me.

Second, IF the Lakers achieve this rank and record, then they did OK - they ain't losers.
Third, IF the Lakers do better, especially say, 41-41 and 8th seed, and beating 4 teams in the process, this is FINE.
Fourth, IF Kobe is, at least, near-Great AND Nash-Pau are close to their usual levels, AND the sum of all the parts is equal to a little better than the parts themselves - then that'd be GREAT.
Fifth, IF the Lakers make the playoffs - who knows - then that (Kobe-Steve-Pau (with their killer smarts & team-spirit) & Friends) would be sheer JOY.

Of course, the best thing that's reasonably possible is to make the playoffs and face the Clippers in the first round. Why? Home-Court-Advantage & ZERO travel. If they somehow squeak past them and get some playoff rythmn under their belts; crazier things have happened. (Remember the 40-42 Rockets making it to the Finals?)

Pacerlive
12-12-2013, 06:06 PM
Actually, the reality is that beyond the first 8 players in the rotation, there is little impact on winning.

http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/a-half-baked-notion-about-the-difference-between-the-regular-season-and-the-playoffs/

So, that's my answer about the end of rotation guys. Beyond that, I would say I have proven my case in regards to Granger and Scola. Scola is bound to be bad and Granger will have minimal impact when you account for his age, health, and diminishing returns.

So, this team is slightly better than last years. Not because their offseason moves were good ([U]they weren't[/B]), but because Granger will have some small impact and their young stars will likely improve.

My answer is "definitely not". More teams improved more than the Pacers did, with only a few teams taking steps backwards. Thus, I don't see the Pacers going anywhere. Again, a 47-50 win team, with their improvement being on par with the average improvement around the league.

Goodness gracious. You'd think I was blasting them based upon the responses I am getting here. I am sorry I didn't drink the old man Scola kool aid and that I am willing to think deeper than adding players equals more wins.


- Hansborough, + Scola = big loss.
Big loss + Danny Granger = at best, breaking even.
Breaking even + Watson = minimal improvement.

Factor in that the bottom of the East got better and the entire West got better and, well, I find it unlikely you all win 50 games, especially when you consider Hibbert's poor production in the regular season. So far he has been a postseason guy. I am not buying high on a breakout this year.



Hey WadeKobe I got some crow pie for you and you might want to wash it down with some old man Scola Kool Aid.. :D

The problem with all projections is that you can't predict who will be healthy in the end but I think its just as stupid to predict injury prone players/teams such as Dwill and Bulls players (pick one) will stay healthy for entire year. YOu should have considered that when you make cases for projections on win loss records.

Pablonovi
12-12-2013, 09:47 PM
The Lakers are going 73-9.

Hey Chacarron,
Yes. Counting backwards 82 games from the last game of the Finals.

Rhino
12-14-2013, 07:13 AM
This is a great thread to come back in on and check to see what everyone believed would happen and those who were right on with their predictions and those that were way off.

cmellofan15
12-14-2013, 01:44 PM
Knicks aren't winning the division this year, guys.