PDA

View Full Version : Kevin Pelton's 2018-2019 predictions (based on RPM)



Scoots
08-03-2018, 08:33 PM
http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/24246576/projected-nba-win-totals-playoff-standings-all-30-teams-2018-19

ESPN Kevin Pelton's predictions for next season's records:

Eastern:
1 Toronto Raptors 55.1
2 Boston Celtics 53.2
3 Philadelphia 76ers 47.8
4 Indiana Pacers 45.7
5 Milwaukee Bucks 45.2
6 Miami Heat 44.8
7 Washington Wizards 43.6
8 Detroit Pistons 39.4
9 Charlotte Hornets 38.3
10 Brooklyn Nets 36.8
11 Orlando Magic 33.6
12 Cleveland Cavaliers 31.0
13 New York Knicks 30.8
14 Chicago Bulls 28.0
15 Atlanta Hawks 25.9

Western:
1 Golden State Warriors 58.6
2 Utah Jazz 53.4
3 Houston Rockets 53.0
4 Denver Nuggets 50.5
5 Minnesota Timberwolves 49.6
6 Oklahoma City Thunder 47.2
7 New Orleans Pelicans 44.1
8 Portland Trail Blazers 42.0
9 L.A. Lakers 41.2
10 San Antonio Spurs 38.5
11 LA Clippers 35.5
12 Memphis Grizzlies 33.1
13 Dallas Mavericks 32.1
14 Phoenix Suns 27.2
15 Sacramento Kings 25.4

The Lakers matched team in the East is the Hornets, and the Spurs match up with the Nets. Wow the east looks weak.

ZH721
08-04-2018, 02:28 PM
http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/24246576/projected-nba-win-totals-playoff-standings-all-30-teams-2018-19

ESPN Kevin Pelton's predictions for next season's records:

Eastern:
1 Toronto Raptors 55.1
2 Boston Celtics 53.2
3 Philadelphia 76ers 47.8
4 Indiana Pacers 45.7
5 Milwaukee Bucks 45.2
6 Miami Heat 44.8
7 Washington Wizards 43.6
8 Detroit Pistons 39.4
9 Charlotte Hornets 38.3
10 Brooklyn Nets 36.8
11 Orlando Magic 33.6
12 Cleveland Cavaliers 31.0
13 New York Knicks 30.8
14 Chicago Bulls 28.0
15 Atlanta Hawks 25.9

Western:
1 Golden State Warriors 58.6
2 Utah Jazz 53.4
3 Houston Rockets 53.0
4 Denver Nuggets 50.5
5 Minnesota Timberwolves 49.6
6 Oklahoma City Thunder 47.2
7 New Orleans Pelicans 44.1
8 Portland Trail Blazers 42.0
9 L.A. Lakers 41.2
10 San Antonio Spurs 38.5
11 LA Clippers 35.5
12 Memphis Grizzlies 33.1
13 Dallas Mavericks 32.1
14 Phoenix Suns 27.2
15 Sacramento Kings 25.4

The Lakers matched team in the East is the Hornets, and the Spurs match up with the Nets. Wow the east looks weak.

Lol at the Celtics getting worse.

Scoots
08-04-2018, 03:48 PM
Lol at the Celtics getting worse.

I'm guessing he was projecting the total record down for the Celtics not on them getting worse but on the competition getting better resulting in some more losses.

ZH721
08-04-2018, 06:20 PM
I'm guessing he was projecting the total record down for the Celtics not on them getting worse but on the competition getting better resulting in some more losses.

:shrug: The Celtics got better too though. I’d be shocked if their record ends up being worse (barring injuries). Their starting lineup is 5 guys who could legitimately make the all-star game, and their bench of Rozier-Smart-Morris-Theis-Baynes is stacked. They’re talented and deep. Can’t see them being worse, even if competition got a little better.

Scoots
08-04-2018, 10:19 PM
:shrug: The Celtics got better too though. I’d be shocked if their record ends up being worse (barring injuries). Their starting lineup is 5 guys who could legitimately make the all-star game, and their bench of Rozier-Smart-Morris-Theis-Baynes is stacked. They’re talented and deep. Can’t see them being worse, even if competition got a little better.

My point was that a team can both be better AND have a worse record.

He has the Rockets getting 12 games "worse" which seems extreme, but it's not about the Rockets being worse as much as it is about the bottom of the west getting much better and there are only so many wins to go around.

ZH721
08-05-2018, 04:56 PM
My point was that a team can both be better AND have a worse record.

He has the Rockets getting 12 games "worse" which seems extreme, but it's not about the Rockets being worse as much as it is about the bottom of the west getting much better and there are only so many wins to go around.

The Rockets did get worse though, and it can be argued they overachieved win-total wise. How can you argue that for the Celtics with all the injuries they faced throughout the year?

You really think a full season of Kyrie and Hayward is anywhere close to upgrades other teams made? On paper the Celtics should increase their wins.

Scoots
08-05-2018, 08:45 PM
The Rockets did get worse though, and it can be argued they overachieved win-total wise. How can you argue that for the Celtics with all the injuries they faced throughout the year?

You really think a full season of Kyrie and Hayward is anywhere close to upgrades other teams made? On paper the Celtics should increase their wins.

I'm saying that a team can get better AND have a worse record. That's all. The Celtics played a lot of games against the 9 tanking teams last year, and the teams not tanking who were just bad, most of those games will be tougher this year, even though the team is better they will likely lose some of those games. They may have a better record, they may have the same record, they may have a worse record, all while also being a better team overall.

ZH721
08-06-2018, 10:52 AM
I'm saying that a team can get better AND have a worse record. That's all. The Celtics played a lot of games against the 9 tanking teams last year, and the teams not tanking who were just bad, most of those games will be tougher this year, even though the team is better they will likely lose some of those games. They may have a better record, they may have the same record, they may have a worse record, all while also being a better team overall.

I know what you’re saying, and I’m telling you in relation to the Celtics in makes no sense.

What team can say they had a better off-season than keeping an ECF team together while adding Hayward+Irving? Not one team.

You’re saying teams who had a worse off-season will have a better chance of beating the Celtics than they did last year. That’s is... wow.

On-paper, predicting the Celtics to get worse doesn’t work.

Scoots
08-06-2018, 12:24 PM
I know what you’re saying, and I’m telling you in relation to the Celtics in makes no sense.

What team can say they had a better off-season than keeping an ECF team together while adding Hayward+Irving? Not one team.

You’re saying teams who had a worse off-season will have a better chance of beating the Celtics than they did last year. That’s is... wow.

On-paper, predicting the Celtics to get worse doesn’t work.

Because a team getting better isn't always reflected in their record. The margins for all teams this year will be tighter in part because last year was such an aberation with so many teams trying to lose.

Jamiecballer
08-06-2018, 01:36 PM
I know what you’re saying, and I’m telling you in relation to the Celtics in makes no sense.

What team can say they had a better off-season than keeping an ECF team together while adding Hayward+Irving? Not one team.

You’re saying teams who had a worse off-season will have a better chance of beating the Celtics than they did last year. That’s is... wow.

On-paper, predicting the Celtics to get worse doesn’t work.Disagree. Toronto had a better off-season. I think OKC had a better off-season. The Lakers, clearly.

What did the Celtics win last year? 55? I will take the under on that this year if anyone is interested in a wager



Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Scoots
08-06-2018, 02:58 PM
Disagree. Toronto had a better off-season. I think OKC had a better off-season. The Lakers, clearly.

What did the Celtics win last year? 55? I will take the under on that this year if anyone is interested in a wager

And it's not just about who had a better off-season, but who got better overall this off-season, and all factors included a lot of teams got better with health (Celtics, and Grizz at least), with modest projected growth of youth, with draft picks, with free agents, and a big one is with the end of the massive glut of tanking. It stands to reason that a lot of top teams who got better are not going to have better records this year.

ZH721
08-06-2018, 04:37 PM
Because a team getting better isn't always reflected in their record. The margins for all teams this year will be tighter in part because last year was such an aberation with so many teams trying to lose.

Except we’re talking about on paper. At the end of the season their record may be the same or worse but to predict that on paper doesn’t make sense.

ZH721
08-06-2018, 04:38 PM
Disagree. Toronto had a better off-season. I think OKC had a better off-season. The Lakers, clearly.

What did the Celtics win last year? 55? I will take the under on that this year if anyone is interested in a wager



Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

How are any of those offseasons better than adding two all-star top 25 players without losing a single rotation player?

The Lakers maybe just because of the LeBron effect but the others absolutely not.

Scoots
08-06-2018, 07:35 PM
Except we’re talking about on paper. At the end of the season their record may be the same or worse but to predict that on paper doesn’t make sense.

Why? Pelton is looking at the changes to all the teams and predicting their records based on their upcoming schedules. If a bad team gets better each win they get comes from another team. Some of them, when a lot of the league got better, are going to come from the better teams too.

Jamiecballer
08-06-2018, 11:28 PM
How are any of those offseasons better than adding two all-star top 25 players without losing a single rotation player?

The Lakers maybe just because of the LeBron effect but the others absolutely not.The Raptors traded a guy who has been a net positive one time in 9 years for a guy who has a legit argument to be the best player in the game after Lebron, if healthy.

Boston, btw, and I hear this all the time, is not adding 2 all-stars, they are adding 1. Please dont give me any horseshit about ECF, as if we didn't get a good picture of what the Celtics were with Irving over an 82 game season. Very good but statistically not quite as good as Toronto. That is what you are adding 1 all-star, Hayward to.

Boston will be very tough, but I'm not living in this world where we forget that Boston still lost to a less than formidable Cavs team and yes, we were swept by them - and that may have caused people to temporarily forget that Cleveland didnt look like much - but Toronto wilted everytime they faced Lebron, for sure, and the guy who inarguably performed worst is the one we swapped Leonard for. Fortuitous indeed.

Granted there is a concern for how the team will respond for a new coach, but swapping Leonard for DeRozan is way bigger than adding Hayward (does he not play Tatums position?) in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Bigbadmoffo
08-07-2018, 12:47 AM
The Raptors traded a guy who has been a net positive one time in 9 years for a guy who has a legit argument to be the best player in the game after Lebron, if healthy.

Boston, btw, and I hear this all the time, is not adding 2 all-stars, they are adding 1. Please dont give me any horseshit about ECF, as if we didn't get a good picture of what the Celtics were with Irving over an 82 game season. Very good but statistically not quite as good as Toronto. That is what you are adding 1 all-star, Hayward to.

Boston will be very tough, but I'm not living in this world where we forget that Boston still lost to a less than formidable Cavs team and yes, we were swept by them - and that may have caused people to temporarily forget that Cleveland didnt look like much - but Toronto wilted everytime they faced Lebron, for sure, and the guy who inarguably performed worst is the one we swapped Leonard for. Fortuitous indeed.

Granted there is a concern for how the team will respond for a new coach, but swapping Leonard for DeRozan is way bigger than adding Hayward (does he not play Tatums position?) in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Hayward is getting extremely overated and Irving hurts the system and D they had in the playoffs so to me it's hard to say if they can even be much better. If you swapped Green for Derozan in the playoffs I actually think we take a couple from the cavs because Green plays better D, Shoots the 3 and doesn't effect the flow of the game so I agree that the Raps got much better then the celtics.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 01:06 AM
Why? Pelton is looking at the changes to all the teams and predicting their records based on their upcoming schedules. If a bad team gets better each win they get comes from another team. Some of them, when a lot of the league got better, are going to come from the better teams too.

Every year you hear this. Literally 25+ teams “got better”. That’s because on paper they did, with each team adding drafted talent, or a FA that fits well. You can’t look at it like that. You need to compare teams across the league. The Celtics added two top 25 players to their ECF team. How many teams upgraded that much? The Lakers maybe, but that means the Cavs got way worse.

You’re predicting the Celtics, who had more improvements than their opponents, to lose more games than they did to those same opponents last year. You’d have to be chalking it up to randomness or luck for that to make sense on paper.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 01:13 AM
The Raptors traded a guy who has been a net positive one time in 9 years for a guy who has a legit argument to be the best player in the game after Lebron, if healthy.

LMAO at the DeRozan down-play now that he’s gone. Love it.


Boston, btw, and I hear this all the time, is not adding 2 all-stars, they are adding 1. Please dont give me any horseshit about ECF, as if we didn't get a good picture of what the Celtics were with Irving over an 82 game season. Very good but statistically not quite as good as Toronto. That is what you are adding 1 all-star, Hayward to.

The Celtics are adding Irving to the team that just went to game 7 of the ECF. Fact.


Boston will be very tough, but I'm not living in this world where we forget that Boston still lost to a less than formidable Cavs team and yes, we were swept by them - and that may have caused people to temporarily forget that Cleveland didnt look like much - but Toronto wilted everytime they faced Lebron, for sure, and the guy who inarguably performed worst is the one we swapped Leonard for. Fortuitous indeed.

The Celtics team that lost to the Cavs is adding two top-25 players to it. Good luck to you if you think that playoff Celtics team is what you will see again next year.


Granted there is a concern for how the team will respond for a new coach, but swapping Leonard for DeRozan is way bigger than adding Hayward (does he not play Tatums position?) in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

It is not way bigger, it is less. I love how you’re pretending DeRozan wasn’t a huge part of your success. Irving+Hayward is huge. Along with the growth of the young studs, the Celtics will be very good.

You don’t even know what positions they play? The Celtics opening night lineup was Irving-Brown-Hayward-Tatum-Horford.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 01:15 AM
Hayward is getting extremely overated and Irving hurts the system and D they had in the playoffs so to me it's hard to say if they can even be much better. If you swapped Green for Derozan in the playoffs I actually think we take a couple from the cavs because Green plays better D, Shoots the 3 and doesn't effect the flow of the game so I agree that the Raps got much better then the celtics.

This may be the worst post I’ve seen on this site in my few months here. Not one sentence is remotely close to reality. Holy ****.

SiteWolf
08-07-2018, 08:34 AM
This may be the worst post I’ve seen on this site in my few months here. Not one sentence is remotely close to reality. Holy ****.

You mean, the one you disagree with the most.
Opinion <> Fact

prodigy
08-07-2018, 09:50 AM
Lol at the Celtics getting worse.

Lol what? doesn't mean they got worse lol, although they will have adjustments to make. A lot of good players who all want the ball.

prodigy
08-07-2018, 09:53 AM
Hayward is getting extremely overated and Irving hurts the system and D they had in the playoffs so to me it's hard to say if they can even be much better. If you swapped Green for Derozan in the playoffs I actually think we take a couple from the cavs because Green plays better D, Shoots the 3 and doesn't effect the flow of the game so I agree that the Raps got much better then the celtics.

Agree that Hayward is overrated. Irving's D always picks up in playoffs. Don't forget Opposing PG's gotta cover him also. Green would not have effected the raptors-cavs series at all. He cant score. Ya he can defend but other cavs players stepped up.

Scoots
08-07-2018, 09:58 AM
Every year you here this. Literally 25+ teams “got better”. That’s because on paper they did, with each team adding drafted talent, or a FA that fits well. You can’t look at it like that. You need to compare teams across the league. The Celtics added two top 25 players to their ECF team. How many teams upgraded that much? The Lakers maybe, but that means the Cavs got way worse.

You’re predicting the Celtics, who had more improvements than their opponents, to lose more games than they did to those same opponents last year. You’d have to be chalking it up to randomness or luck for that to make sense on paper.

9 teams were actively TRYING to lose last year, this year they are not tanking. Last year was a particularly disjointed year. Pelton isn't saying the Celtics are going to be worse, just that the bottom of the league is going to be better.

If you are going to count Hayward as a Celtics improvement then all of the other returning injured players have to count for their teams too right? Add in a deep draft and an interesting free agent period ... it's not a science, but there are legit reasons to support Pelton's numbers.

Jamiecballer
08-07-2018, 10:24 AM
Every year you here this. Literally 25+ teams “got better”. That’s because on paper they did, with each team adding drafted talent, or a FA that fits well. You can’t look at it like that. You need to compare teams across the league. The Celtics added two top 25 players to their ECF team. How many teams upgraded that much? The Lakers maybe, but that means the Cavs got way worse.

You’re predicting the Celtics, who had more improvements than their opponents, to lose more games than they did to those same opponents last year. You’d have to be chalking it up to randomness or luck for that to make sense on paper.Well you are right about one thing. When people say "on paper" they usually are taking the additions and subtractions (and the stats those players produced last) and acting as though their effect is little more than adding them up and coming up with a net result. So by that definition adding Hayward is big and definitely "on paper" that makes the celtics much better.

So IMO anybody who doesn't think they should be much better is not looking at it in the simplistic way outlined above. That is likely a cause of confusion here.



Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
08-07-2018, 11:03 AM
The Celtics are adding Irving to the team that just went to game 7 of the ECF. Fact.

Sure, no doubt. So the question I guess is simply this: what does that mean?

Does it guarantee that Boston was one of the best 2 teams in the East last year? No, obviously your finish in a small sample size tournament is not a guarantee of anything. Having said that, I think just about everyone would agree that Boston and Toronto were the 2 best teams in the East last year. So what did it confirm for you other than what everyone already knew - that Boston was one of the 2 best teams in the conference?

Now if concede Boston was the clear second during the regular season (fewer wins despite a much softer schedule and miles behind Toronto in differential) than can I safely assume you believe Boston upped their game in the playoffs? Yet we assume Boston is better with Irving? Feels like you, and a lot of other people are hoping despite little evidence that your team is better with him than without. Irving is a sensational one on one player and fantastic bail out option (as he was with James) but we've yet to see definitive proof that Irving is good running and utilizing an offense. Maybe hes got it, maybe he hasn't.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
08-07-2018, 11:19 AM
The Celtics team that lost to the Cavs is adding two top-25 players to it. Good luck to you if you think that playoff Celtics team is what you will see again next year.

The Cavs are not great, already covered that. The Celtics are a better team than the Cavs, they just don't have James.

And I have no idea what the Celtics look like in the playoffs next year. Nobody does, that's the point. We have no idea how much better the Celtics will be next year. If we are honest we dont even know IF they will be better.

The Celtics had a nice playoff, but again, it didnt tell us anything we didnt already know. As fans. But for the players, will they all sacrifice and be willing teammates? That is the unknown. Players have egos. You are adding roughly an expected 70 mpg for Irving and Hayeard and the bulk of the reduced minutes will have to come from guys who probably feel like they were a key part of a team that almost got to the finals. Who knows how that will complicate things on a team that plays very cohesively.

My guess is Ainge gives it a go and deals a major piece mid-season if the results are underwhelming. Something will probably have to give here. IMO.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
08-07-2018, 11:33 AM
It is not way bigger, it is less. I love how you’re pretending DeRozan wasn’t a huge part of your success.
He was not. I dont expect many people paid much attention to us over the past 5 years or so and understandably so. It has been slow and steady growth, you would be forgiven if you hadn't noticed that DeRozan still can't defend, shoot 3s at a decent clip, and is fairly tunnel visioned. Guy who could score in isolation got better at scoring in isolation while failing to add the part of his offensive game that would add the most value to his team. The 3.
Kevin Pelton had a piece on ESPN that might be an eye opener for you regarding Demars value. No doubt Demar did not appreciate it - not because he has a problem with the criticism, but because he wasnt told by Kevin Pelton first LOL


Irving+Hayward is huge
I don't think they can possibly impact the team as much as you think.


Along with the growth of the young studs, the Celtics will be very good.
Your youth and coach are why the team has a great future. I expect the team to look much different 12 months from now and that will be for the better IMO.



You don’t even know what positions they play? The Celtics opening night lineup was Irving-Brown-Hayward-Tatum-Horford.
That's fair. I didnt realize Tatum was playing the 4. My bad. Not sure it changes the logjam in any substantial way.


Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

warfelg
08-07-2018, 11:43 AM
Lol what? doesn't mean they got worse lol, although they will have adjustments to make. A lot of good players who all want the ball.

This.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 04:55 PM
You mean, the one you disagree with the most.
Opinion <> Fact

No, literally every sentence is false.

“Hayward is extremely overrated.”
“Irving hurts the system.”
“Swapping Green for DeRozan would’ve helped the Raptors win a couple games.” :laugh2:
“Raps got MUCH better than the Celtics.”

I mean come on.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 05:01 PM
9 teams were actively TRYING to lose last year, this year they are not tanking. Last year was a particularly disjointed year. Pelton isn't saying the Celtics are going to be worse, just that the bottom of the league is going to be better.

If you are going to count Hayward as a Celtics improvement then all of the other returning injured players have to count for their teams too right? Add in a deep draft and an interesting free agent period ... it's not a science, but there are legit reasons to support Pelton's numbers.

You’re still ignoring my point.

How do the Celtics who had a better off-season than basically everyone now lose to those same teams? On paper that makes no sense.

It would be different if those teams had a better off-season then the Celtics. They didn’t. Yet they’ll now win more just because they improved (even though their improvements weren’t as good)?

If you want to say it’s your opinion that the Celtics will be worse based on luck/randomness, I wouldn’t argue a thing. To say that on paper they should do worse doesn’t logically make sense.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 05:09 PM
Sure, no doubt. So the question I guess is simply this: what does that mean?

Does it guarantee that Boston was one of the best 2 teams in the East last year? No, obviously your finish in a small sample size tournament is not a guarantee of anything. Having said that, I think just about everyone would agree that Boston and Toronto were the 2 best teams in the East last year. So what did it confirm for you other than what everyone already knew - that Boston was one of the 2 best teams in the conference?

Now if concede Boston was the clear second during the regular season (fewer wins despite a much softer schedule and miles behind Toronto in differential) than can I safely assume you believe Boston upped their game in the playoffs? Yet we assume Boston is better with Irving? Feels like you, and a lot of other people are hoping despite little evidence that your team is better with him than without. Irving is a sensational one on one player and fantastic bail out option (as he was with James) but we've yet to see definitive proof that Irving is good running and utilizing an offense. Maybe hes got it, maybe he hasn't.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

They are much better with Irving. They needed his scoring in the Cavs series.

They Celtics only had four returning players last year. Four. Then they lost Hayward game one and had to rely heavily on a 19 and 20 year old (ages to start the season). It took them a while to build chemistry and work out roles.

Remember they almost lost to the Bucks in round one. How different would the narrative be from you and others if they lost? Then Irving’s impact wouldn’t have been questioned. He is very, very important to the Celtics.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 05:11 PM
Lol what? doesn't mean they got worse lol, although they will have adjustments to make. A lot of good players who all want the ball.

It does mean that on-paper. Pretty shocking prediction considering how young the core of the team was and the players returning from injury.

They’ll be fine with sharing the ball. With Stevens coaching and Horford on the floor, everyone will get their shots. The Warriors make it work just fine.


This.

Philly fan to the rescue.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 05:18 PM
He was not. I dont expect many people paid much attention to us over the past 5 years or so and understandably so. It has been slow and steady growth, you would be forgiven if you hadn't noticed that DeRozan still can't defend, shoot 3s at a decent clip, and is fairly tunnel visioned. Guy who could score in isolation got better at scoring in isolation while failing to add the part of his offensive game that would add the most value to his team. The 3.
Kevin Pelton had a piece on ESPN that might be an eye opener for you regarding Demars value. No doubt Demar did not appreciate it - not because he has a problem with the criticism, but because he wasnt told by Kevin Pelton first LOL

I have watched plenty of Raptors games. Advanced stats laugh at you. DeRozan is a very good player. A healthy Kawhi is much better, but DeRozan is really good.


I don't think they can possibly impact the team as much as you think.

Two top-25 players won’t impact the team that much?


Your youth and coach are why the team has a great future. I expect the team to look much different 12 months from now and that will be for the better IMO.

At most, Irving will be gone from the core. But I don’t see that happening. Everyone else will be on the team, due to either being under contract or the Celtics having no reason to let them go.


That's fair. I didnt realize Tatum was playing the 4. My bad. Not sure it changes the logjam in any substantial way.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

It means they can all play together, easily. In today’s NBA and in Brad’s system, there is no positions.

IKnowHoops
08-07-2018, 05:18 PM
Hayward is getting extremely overated and Irving hurts the system and D they had in the playoffs so to me it's hard to say if they can even be much better. If you swapped Green for Derozan in the playoffs I actually think we take a couple from the cavs because Green plays better D, Shoots the 3 and doesn't effect the flow of the game so I agree that the Raps got much better then the celtics.

Bingo

Jamiecballer
08-07-2018, 05:22 PM
They are much better with Irving. They needed his scoring in the Cavs series.

They Celtics only had four returning players last year. Four. Then they lost Hayward game one and had to rely heavily on a 19 and 20 year old (ages to start the season). It took them a while to build chemistry and work out roles.

Remember they almost lost to the Bucks in round one. How different would the narrative be from you and others if they lost? Then Irving’s impact wouldn’t have been questioned. He is very, very important to the Celtics.
i'm not disagreeing with you here. you don't want to overreact to the almost losing to the bucks any more than you do the fact that they did not and made it to the ECF. that's why the most logical view of the Celtics is to look at them as the team that won 55 and added Gordon Hayward. :eyebrow:

IKnowHoops
08-07-2018, 05:23 PM
LMAO at the DeRozan down-play now that he’s gone. Love it.



The Celtics are adding Irving to the team that just went to game 7 of the ECF. Fact.



The Celtics team that lost to the Cavs is adding two top-25 players to it. Good luck to you if you think that playoff Celtics team is what you will see again next year.



It is not way bigger, it is less. I love how you’re pretending DeRozan wasn’t a huge part of your success. Irving+Hayward is huge. Along with the growth of the young studs, the Celtics will be very good.

You don’t even know what positions they play? The Celtics opening night lineup was Irving-Brown-Hayward-Tatum-Horford.

What you fail to realize, is that the Cavs has an easier time against the Celtics whe Kyrie played. Cavs smacked the Celtics with Kyrie. That gave Kyrie motivation to quit this season, because he felt they had no chance this year. Then he left and the Celtics got a good amount better. That team is very deep. Kyrie was actually a weak link sometimes in some aspects.

Jamiecballer
08-07-2018, 05:27 PM
I have watched plenty of Raptors games. Advanced stats laugh at you. DeRozan is a very good player. A healthy Kawhi is much better, but DeRozan is really good.

i don't know what advanced stats laugh at you means, but if you think Derozan is a very good player than you are obviously not familiar with advanced stats and have no business speaking for them.




Two top-25 players won’t impact the team that much?
if you can understand how adding Gordon Hayward and Kyrie Irving to Sacramento would impact their team more than it would adding them to Houston than you can reason this one out for yourself dude. Or you can stop the spreading the fallacious "adding two top 25 players" argument. either one would be great.

Jamiecballer
08-07-2018, 05:32 PM
They are much better with Irving. They needed his scoring in the Cavs series.

They Celtics only had four returning players last year. Four. Then they lost Hayward game one and had to rely heavily on a 19 and 20 year old (ages to start the season). It took them a while to build chemistry and work out roles.

Remember they almost lost to the Bucks in round one. How different would the narrative be from you and others if they lost? Then Irving’s impact wouldn’t have been questioned. He is very, very important to the Celtics.

if they are much better with Irving why did they perform almost identically to how they performed the year before without him? Do you think Irving is a lot better than Isiah Thomas?

ZH721
08-07-2018, 06:07 PM
i'm not disagreeing with you here. you don't want to overreact to the almost losing to the bucks any more than you do the fact that they did not and made it to the ECF. that's why the most logical view of the Celtics is to look at them as the team that won 55 and added Gordon Hayward. :eyebrow:

And how many teams are going to add Gordon Hayward, have young studs who will improve, keep EVERY rotation player, and yet somehow win less games?

How many teams had a better off-season then adding Gordon Hayward? The Lakers? Yet the Celtics won’t win as much even though worse teams had worse off-seasons.

Jamiecballer
08-07-2018, 06:12 PM
And how many teams are going to add Gordon Hayward, have young studs who will improve, keep EVERY rotation player, and yet somehow win less games?

How many teams had a better off-season then adding Gordon Hayward? The Lakers? Yet the Celtics won’t win as much even though worse teams had worse off-seasons.I'm not ruling put the possibility of the Celtics winning more games, they very well could. You are acting like there are not potential pitfalls in this scenario and that simply isnt the case. This will be the toughest coaching job of Stevens career to this point though. It could be a great battle between Raps and Celtics for top spot. Philly, I think, still needs another year.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

ZH721
08-07-2018, 06:13 PM
What you fail to realize, is that the Cavs has an easier time against the Celtics whe Kyrie played. Cavs smacked the Celtics with Kyrie. That gave Kyrie motivation to quit this season, because he felt they had no chance this year. Then he left and the Celtics got a good amount better. That team is very deep. Kyrie was actually a weak link sometimes in some aspects.

The Celtics were 1-2 against the Cavs this year, with that first loss being by 3 points after Hayward broke his leg. The Cavs smacked the Celtics with Kyrie? What???

Lol that is not why Kyrie left. He didn’t quit, he was injured. Good lord, “IKnowHoops” lol what.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 06:17 PM
i don't know what advanced stats laugh at you means, but if you think Derozan is a very good player than you are obviously not familiar with advanced stats and have no business speaking for them.

Yikes. Open up a basketball reference page bud. This is ROUGH lol.


if you can understand how adding Gordon Hayward and Kyrie Irving to Sacramento would impact their team more than it would adding them to Houston than you can reason this one out for yourself dude. Or you can stop the spreading the fallacious "adding two top 25 players" argument. either one would be great.

Adding two top-25 players to any team will have a huge impact. That fact that you don’t think so is quite amazing though. How the **** is it fallacious?


dude, don't agree with the most idiotic post that has ever been posted, what are you thinking :rolleyes:

He said with Danny Green instead of DeRozan the Raptors would’ve taken a few games from the Cavs. That is so far off from reality that it is the worst post I’ve seen on here. The others quotes in it are just a cherry on top.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 06:19 PM
if they are much better with Irving why did they perform almost identically to how they performed the year before without him? Do you think Irving is a lot better than Isiah Thomas?

They had 4 returning players. Please tell me you’re not comparing a team with only 4 of the same players. Please...

ZH721
08-07-2018, 06:20 PM
I'm not ruling put the possibility of the Celtics winning more games, they very well could. You are acting like there are not potential pitfalls in this scenario and that simply isnt the case. This will be the toughest coaching job of Stevens career to this point though. It could be a great battle between Raps and Celtics for top spot. Philly, I think, still needs another year.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

I said on paper it doesn’t make sense. That is true.

Of course anything can happen, see last years Celtics injuries. That is different from on paper.

Jamiecballer
08-07-2018, 06:54 PM
I said on paper it doesn’t make sense. That is true.

Of course anything can happen, see last years Celtics injuries. That is different from on paper.

sure, but "on paper" is the kind of pointless discussion best suited for casual conversation when company comes over. on paper the warriors wouldn't be this great dynasty.

Scoots
08-07-2018, 07:01 PM
And how many teams are going to add Gordon Hayward, have young studs who will improve, keep EVERY rotation player, and yet somehow win less games?

How many teams had a better off-season then adding Gordon Hayward? The Lakers? Yet the Celtics won’t win as much even though worse teams had worse off-seasons.

The Warriors added Kevin Durant and won fewer games. They were a better team and won fewer games. It happens all the time for top teams.

Scoots
08-07-2018, 07:03 PM
You’re still ignoring my point.

How do the Celtics who had a better off-season than basically everyone now lose to those same teams? On paper that makes no sense.

It would be different if those teams had a better off-season then the Celtics. They didn’t. Yet they’ll now win more just because they improved (even though their improvements weren’t as good)?

If you want to say it’s your opinion that the Celtics will be worse based on luck/randomness, I wouldn’t argue a thing. To say that on paper they should do worse doesn’t logically make sense.

Let's say 29 teams are tanking and one team wins 80 games. The next year only 1 team is tanking, and the 80 win team adds a 27 year old LeBron James ... the 80 win team is probably not going to win 80 games again. One team getting better, even one team getting MORE better, does not mean it will win more games.

IKnowHoops
08-07-2018, 08:32 PM
The Celtics were 1-2 against the Cavs this year, with that first loss being by 3 points after Hayward broke his leg. The Cavs smacked the Celtics with Kyrie? What???

Lol that is not why Kyrie left. He didn’t quit, he was injured. Good lord, “IKnowHoops” lol what.

You do realize the Cavs team changed from that first meeting right? Yeah they smacked the Celtics with Kyrie badly immediately after the final trade. I know b cause I watched them demoralize the Celtics. Shortly after, Kyrie bailed. He was injured before the trade to the Celtics. He threatened to sit out and get surgery if the Cavs didn’t trade him. Be more informed about your players.

zn23
08-07-2018, 08:45 PM
Eastern Conference



1. Toronto Raptors
Projected wins: 55.1

2. Boston Celtics
Projected wins: 53.2

3. Philadelphia 76ers
Projected wins: 47.8


4. Indiana Pacers
Projected wins: 45.7

5. Milwaukee Bucks
Projected wins: 45.2

6. Miami Heat
Projected wins: 44.8

7. Washington Wizards
Projected wins: 43.6

8. Detroit Pistons
Projected wins: 39.4

9. Charlotte Hornets
Projected wins: 38.3

10. Brooklyn Nets
Projected wins: 36.8

11. Orlando Magic
Projected wins: 33.6

12. Cleveland Cavaliers
Projected wins: 31.0

13. New York Knicks
Projected wins: 30.8

14. Chicago Bulls
Projected wins: 28.0

15. Atlanta Hawks
Projected wins: 25.9

Western Conference


1. Golden State Warriors
Projected wins: 58.6

2. Utah Jazz
Projected wins: 53.4

3. Houston Rockets
Projected wins: 53.0

4. Denver Nuggets
Projected wins: 50.5

5. Minnesota Timberwolves
Projected wins: 49.6

6. Oklahoma City Thunder
Projected wins: 47.2

7. New Orleans Pelicans
Projected wins: 44.1

8. Portland Trail Blazers
Projected wins: 42.0

9. L.A. Lakers
Projected wins: 41.2

10. San Antonio Spurs
Projected wins: 38.5

11. LA Clippers
Projected wins: 35.5

12. Memphis Grizzlies
Projected wins: 33.1.

13. Dallas Mavericks
Projected wins: 32.1

14. Phoenix Suns
Projected wins: 27.2

15. Sacramento Kings
Projected wins: 25.4

Thoughts?

cmellofan15
08-07-2018, 08:58 PM
I’m loving all the denver love this offseason but lakers fans will come in and derail any intelligent convo you expected to have in this thread lol

L8kers4life
08-07-2018, 09:21 PM
I would say the list is pretty good for now, hopefully after a month into the season the Lakers surpass these expectations.

ZH721
08-07-2018, 10:06 PM
The Warriors added Kevin Durant and won fewer games. They were a better team and won fewer games. It happens all the time for top teams.

Yeah, I didn’t really expect them to improve on the best record ever. Apples to oranges at its best right there.


Let's say 29 teams are tanking and one team wins 80 games. The next year only 1 team is tanking, and the 80 win team adds a 27 year old LeBron James ... the 80 win team is probably not going to win 80 games again. One team getting better, even one team getting MORE better, does not mean it will win more games.

Except you don’t know how many teams are tanking. Many teams that you think tanked last year did not have that plan at the beginning of the season. Again, it’s the same thing every year.

JAZZNC
08-07-2018, 10:14 PM
I would be slightly surprised if the Jazz were second best in the West. I mean I certainly hope they are and if they get an improved, more efficient Mitchell and Gobert plays the whole year (unlikely) they could. They definitely have more continuity than any other team outside of GS and maybe Portland as far as roster is concerned.

Chronz
08-07-2018, 11:32 PM
Rocket fans should love this thread. I can't get the Lakers to win in 2k either

Vinylman
08-08-2018, 07:23 AM
I’m loving all the denver love this offseason but lakers fans will come in and derail any intelligent convo you expected to have in this thread lol

LMFAO... the analysis is garbage based solely on the SA win projection... talk about idiotic

Lakers fans don't need to say anything to mock the numbers

warfelg
08-08-2018, 07:44 AM
LMFAO... the analysis is garbage based solely on the SA win projection... talk about idiotic

Lakers fans don't need to say anything to mock the numbers

In general it's a joke because Pelton is projecting injuries, minutes played, growth, decline, and other factors too. Like he admitted that last years RPM lined up perfectly with the Sixers record, but for this year he's projecting less because he has Simmons playing less minutes (Down from 81 games at 34 MPG to 75 games and 30 MPG) and Embiid playing 50 games (Down from 63 games). That's a heck of a projection to make, shaving 6 games off the win total from last year.

I would suspect he did the same thing to the Lakers, projecting a reduction in minutes for Bron, injury for Rondo, big dips in production for McGee and Stephenson, and no growth for Ball, Kuzma, Ingram.

lakerfan85
08-08-2018, 08:03 AM
How is New Orleans projected to win 44 games?

Rivera
08-08-2018, 08:14 AM
I don’t mind it. I don’t think it’s terrible. I just don’t get the Minnesota love. Switch them and the Lakers. Minnesota is not making the playoffs

warfelg
08-08-2018, 08:29 AM
How is New Orleans projected to win 44 games?

Projecting decline from Jrue and injury to AD.

Vinylman
08-08-2018, 08:43 AM
In general it's a joke because Pelton is projecting injuries, minutes played, growth, decline, and other factors too. Like he admitted that last years RPM lined up perfectly with the Sixers record, but for this year he's projecting less because he has Simmons playing less minutes (Down from 81 games at 34 MPG to 75 games and 30 MPG) and Embiid playing 50 games (Down from 63 games). That's a heck of a projection to make, shaving 6 games off the win total from last year.

I would suspect he did the same thing to the Lakers, projecting a reduction in minutes for Bron, injury for Rondo, big dips in production for McGee and Stephenson, and no growth for Ball, Kuzma, Ingram.

I don't really care about the Lakers projection... The two dumbest ones are easily Minnie and SA...

Anyone that thinks that SA isn't winning 40 games doesn't know much

warfelg
08-08-2018, 08:52 AM
I don't really care about the Lakers projection... The two dumbest ones are easily Minnie and SA...

Anyone that thinks that SA isn't winning 40 games doesn't know much

Just apply some of the same logic:

SA - DeRozen in a slower pace means lower RPM for him, projecting missed time from LMA, little growth from Murray, Poetl playing very little, Gay having a decline.

Minny - No injuries for Butler or Teague, Improved play from Wiggins and KAT, Gibson experiencing no decline.

If you apply those parameters to Peltons wins RPM projection, you end up there.

kdspurman
08-08-2018, 09:31 AM
Just apply some of the same logic:

SA - DeRozen in a slower pace means lower RPM for him, projecting missed time from LMA, little growth from Murray, Poetl playing very little, Gay having a decline.

Minny - No injuries for Butler or Teague, Improved play from Wiggins and KAT, Gibson experiencing no decline.

If you apply those parameters to Peltons wins RPM projection, you end up there.

Aldridge played 75 games, (pretty durable) and Murray is only going to get better, he made a decent sized leap last year and now will have the full reigns all season. I get the lower RPM for DeRozan, but SA has some young guys who undoubtedly will be better.

Either way, I don't think anyone believes the Spurs will be 9 games worse when they're essentially replacing Green for DeRozan and struggled mightily offensively last year. I always take these projections with a grain of salt.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 09:38 AM
Aldridge played 75 games, (pretty durable) and Murray is only going to get better, he made a decent sized leap last year and now will have the full reigns all season. I get the lower RPM for DeRozan, but SA has some young guys who undoubtedly will be better.

Either way, I don't think anyone believes the Spurs will be 9 games worse when they're essentially replacing Green for DeRozan and struggled mightily offensively last year. I always take these projections with a grain of salt.

Well that's what I'm kinda saying. Pelton's projections on what's about to happen is silly. Like for LMA his projection for games is based on age and the average post player. It doesn't work like that. Murray's projection is to flatten his curve because of how much he's already improved, so Pelton is flattening it based on the average.

Pelton's projections and using the average on their case is so just incredibly stupid. Pelton's projections yearly end up about the furthest.

I know this is homer, but it's because I follow the news with them more, but Pelton projected the Sixers for 28-ish wins based on his RPM last year, 12-5-5 on 25 minutes for Simmons, 45 games for Embiid. Obviously those got far passed by both of those players and on teams.

Wrigheyes4MVP
08-08-2018, 09:56 AM
These projections are a crock.

Lakers are making the playoffs. I guarantee it.

San Antonio too. And Utah won't be the 2 seed.

Htownballa1622
08-08-2018, 09:58 AM
Rocket fans should love this thread. I can't get the Lakers to win in 2k either

Haha. Nah. Every year it's the same run around from the national media.

"Mike D isn't a good fit in Houston" Wins COY
"Harden can't be a pg" Has phenomenal mvp season but TRIPPLE DUBLEZZZ!
"Cp3 and Harden won't work." Worked and Harden MVP
"Rockets aren't better than Thunder." LOL
"Warriors will sweep Rockets." Rockets took them to 7

"Rockets lost Trevor 'Pippen' Ariza and Luc 'Kawhi" Moute."
I don't even respond anymore because it's the same dummies saying the same things.
I just sit back and wait now for people to eat crow.

TheDish87
08-08-2018, 10:19 AM
Sixers are gonna win like 70 games so 47 seems really low given we won 52 last year anyway

kdspurman
08-08-2018, 10:26 AM
Well that's what I'm kinda saying. Pelton's projections on what's about to happen is silly. Like for LMA his projection for games is based on age and the average post player. It doesn't work like that. Murray's projection is to flatten his curve because of how much he's already improved, so Pelton is flattening it based on the average.

Pelton's projections and using the average on their case is so just incredibly stupid. Pelton's projections yearly end up about the furthest.

I know this is homer, but it's because I follow the news with them more, but Pelton projected the Sixers for 28-ish wins based on his RPM last year, 12-5-5 on 25 minutes for Simmons, 45 games for Embiid. Obviously those got far passed by both of those players and on teams.

Yea that was a pretty low # for Philly.. He uses his own minutes estimation too, which are likely very wrong for many teams. It's definitely not the strongest logic, and people shouldn't take it too seriously.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 10:42 AM
Yea that was a pretty low # for Philly.. He uses his own minutes estimation too, which are likely very wrong for many teams. It's definitely not the strongest logic, and people shouldn't take it too seriously.

Yea, so many people complain about the people that use analytics to backup arguments and say they are watching on a laptop.....but man Pelton is what those people complain about that.

Vinylman
08-08-2018, 10:42 AM
Just apply some of the same logic:

SA - DeRozen in a slower pace means lower RPM for him, projecting missed time from LMA, little growth from Murray, Poetl playing very little, Gay having a decline.

Minny - No injuries for Butler or Teague, Improved play from Wiggins and KAT, Gibson experiencing no decline.

If you apply those parameters to Peltons wins RPM projection, you end up there.

yeah... I understand the math... the methodology is garbage is my point because it is one assumption piled on a bunch of others...

its meaningless

prodigy
08-08-2018, 10:53 AM
The Cavs are not great, already covered that. The Celtics are a better team than the Cavs, they just don't have James.

Wait what? I hate when people say dumb stuff. Lebron was a member of the cavs. Trust me he got 30+ million from them lol. So how can you say Celtics were better but cavs just had Lebron? thats crazy talk. Cavs are better then the Warriors but they just had Curry, Thompson, Durant. lol you can't just take players off a team and then say that team sucks.

Hawkeye15
08-08-2018, 11:47 AM
anyone know how Pelton has done prior seasons as far as accuracy? I generally respect him, but was just curious.

Hawkeye15
08-08-2018, 11:50 AM
yeah... I understand the math... the methodology is garbage is my point because it is one assumption piled on a bunch of others...

its meaningless

all preseason predictions are meaningless. But we need something to talk about when players are on vacation and everyone is 0-0...

Htownballa1622
08-08-2018, 12:12 PM
anyone know how Pelton has done prior seasons as far as accuracy? I generally respect him, but was just curious.

1025527792677482497

1025527793604382720

1025527794803998720

Jamiecballer
08-08-2018, 12:30 PM
Wait what? I hate when people say dumb stuff. Lebron was a member of the cavs. Trust me he got 30+ million from them lol. So how can you say Celtics were better but cavs just had Lebron? thats crazy talk. Cavs are better then the Warriors but they just had Curry, Thompson, Durant. lol you can't just take players off a team and then say that team sucks.You can when the player is one of the 2 best in history and raises his game to ridiculous heights in the playoffs. The Cavs were what they were last year - an underwhelming outfit with the 2nd or 1st player of all time

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

WaDe03
08-08-2018, 12:38 PM
Garbage list.

prodigy
08-08-2018, 02:18 PM
You can when the player is one of the 2 best in history and raises his game to ridiculous heights in the playoffs. The Cavs were what they were last year - an underwhelming outfit with the 2nd or 1st player of all time

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

A team that Lebron pretty much demanded btw. Forced Team to resign Smith and TT. Chased Irving away, Wouldn't commit so couldn't pull the trigger on that PG deal they had etc...

valade16
08-08-2018, 05:50 PM
A team that Lebron pretty much demanded btw. Forced Team to resign Smith and TT. Chased Irving away, Wouldn't commit so couldn't pull the trigger on that PG deal they had etc...

To be fair LeBron also said to keep Kyrie and that he thought he'd play for Cleveland after camp, and I'm sure LeBron would have wanted them to do the PG deal even if he wouldn't commit. Had he had his way, Cleveland would have looked a lot different last season I'm sure. Though I'm sure it would have been disastrous for Cleveland when Bron inevitably left anyway.

Bigbadmoffo
08-08-2018, 08:37 PM
I seen every Raptor game and I without a doubt believe Derozan was causing the same problems Carmelo caused for Denver. Derozan is a great player in the wrong era of basketball it's why our bench carried us to 59 wins cause they played the system designed by Nurse. Derozan would not change his game to fit the system but I believe Pop will make him the player he needs to be.

prodigy
08-09-2018, 09:57 AM
To be fair LeBron also said to keep Kyrie and that he thought he'd play for Cleveland after camp, and I'm sure LeBron would have wanted them to do the PG deal even if he wouldn't commit. Had he had his way, Cleveland would have looked a lot different last season I'm sure. Though I'm sure it would have been disastrous for Cleveland when Bron inevitably left anyway.

To be fair Lebron had more then enough chances to talk with Irving. Irving threaten surgery just to not play with Lebron again. Its not like Cavs randomly called lebron and said guess who doesn't like you and guess what we just did. lol, i knew step by step what was happening as a fan, pretty sure Lebron knew also.

Lebron made that cavs team what it was. Best thing Lakers could do is not listen to him lol. I thank lebron for hte title and hte great charity work he does. But he hurts himself a lot with lack of knowledge far as bringing a team together.

Still 100 times smarter then trump though.

DamnGoat
08-10-2018, 12:31 PM
Man, as a Bulls fan it'd be hilarious if after punting (somewhat) on the rebuild they only win 1 more game. Selfishly, I kinda hope it happens so the FO can finally be pushed out the door. Even then, I'm not sure that'll be enough.

I do think they're going to be kinda awful though and that's a bad look after committing $40M to LaVine & Parker.