NBA prediction for next season.

[moonpie23]

I don't usually make predictions, but, i've got a feeling that, no matter who else goes to the lakers, Christopher Walken is telling the story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Cbzrp6I5I) of The King.

[22JumpShots]

I don't usually make predictions, but, i've got a feeling that, no matter who else goes to the lakers, Christopher Walken is telling the story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Cbzrp6I5I) of The King.

You think Lakers win it all next year? I hope they don't. :D

[moonpie23]

no, i'm just saying that lebron is going to remind everyone who he is....

[bundabergdevil]

538 posted its way too early projections for next year based on their CARMELO ratings. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-way-too-early-projections-for-the-2019-20-nba-season/) They've got the Rockets with the highest chance of representing the Western Conference in the finals, followed by the Lakers. Out East, it's the 76ers then the Bucks. Overall, the 76ers have the highest projected chance of winning it all followed by the Rockets.

Just a gut reaction --- I'm not sold on the Rockets experiment yet. I'm not sure who's going to make that team go. I'm also not sure why the 76ers got so much better when they lost 2/5ths of their starting line-up. I understand why they're favored in the East but not sure why they're projected as the overall best team.

[curtis325]

538 posted its way too early projections for next year based on their CARMELO ratings. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-way-too-early-projections-for-the-2019-20-nba-season/) They've got the Rockets with the highest chance of representing the Western Conference in the finals, followed by the Lakers. Out East, it's the 76ers then the Bucks. Overall, the 76ers have the highest projected chance of winning it all followed by the Rockets.

Just a gut reaction --- I'm not sold on the Rockets experiment yet. I'm not sure who's going to make that team go. I'm also not sure why the 76ers got so much better when they lost 2/5ths of their starting line-up. I understand why they're favored in the East but not sure why they're projected as the overall best team.

They also give the Pelicans a 50% chance of making the playoffs. Sounds like a perfect pie bet.

[chris13]

I think LeBron has a strong case for greatest player ever, but I don't like the Lakers lineup outside of him and Davis and I don't trust the Lakers front office at all. Also, even in this era of guys defining aging curves, Lebron is going to turn 35 and is coming off an injury. Will be a fascinating season for sure.

[Kedsy]

538 posted its way too early projections for next year based on their CARMELO ratings. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-way-too-early-projections-for-the-2019-20-nba-season/) They've got the Rockets with the highest chance of representing the Western Conference in the finals, followed by the Lakers. Out East, it's the 76ers then the Bucks. Overall, the 76ers have the highest projected chance of winning it all followed by the Rockets.

Just a gut reaction --- I'm not sold on the Rockets experiment yet. I'm not sure who's going to make that team go. I'm also not sure why the 76ers got so much better when they lost 2/5ths of their starting line-up. I understand why they're favored in the East but not sure why they're projected as the overall best team.

Having the highest projected chance of winning it all is not the same as being projected as the overall best team. If, for example, you think four teams in the West and two teams in the East are roughly equivalent, the best Eastern team will probably have the best chance of winning it all, even if they're the fourth or even fifth best team in the bunch, because they have the best chance of making the finals and at least a decent chance of winning once they're there.

[elvis14]

I think LeBron has a strong case for greatest player ever, but I don't like the Lakers lineup outside of him and Davis and I don't trust the Lakers front office at all. Also, even in this era of guys defining aging curves, Lebron is going to turn 35 and is coming off an injury. Will be a fascinating season for sure.

I'm on record on DBR as saying that I don't like LeBron (mostly because of his on court whining). I'll also say that I think Davis is a little overrated (perhaps because he gets hurt). With Cheater Green having once again put himself in a position to be carried by a great player, I hope the Lakers lose a lot (sorry QC). Having said all that, I don't think LeBron needs all that much help to win it all. If LeBron and Davis stay healthy and with Quinn there to hit 3's, Kuzma coming into his own, Cousins available and somewhat healthy....I think they are the team to beat. LeBron is just that disruptive, that special.

Hope I'm wrong though.

I wish the Pelicans had a better team mascot because I really want them to do well next season.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm on record on DBR as saying that I don't like LeBron (mostly because of his on court whining). I'll also say that I think Davis is a little overrated (perhaps because he gets hurt). With Cheater Green having once again put himself in a position to be carried by a great player, I hope the Lakers lose a lot (sorry QC). Having said all that, I don't think LeBron needs all that much help to win it all. If LeBron and Davis stay healthy and with Quinn there to hit 3's, Kuzma coming into his own, Cousins available and somewhat healthy...I think they are the team to beat. LeBron is just that disruptive, that special.

Hope I'm wrong though.

I wish the Pelicans had a better team mascot because I really want them to do well next season.

I appreciate your reasoning for disliking Lebron. I think he's an all-time talent.
My only issue is that if you disliked every player that participates in on court whining, you'd have very few players to root for.
I lost my favorite team when the Hornets left. Then, I lost my favorite team when the Sonics left. I will root for Blue Devils, including Quinn. Luckily, the Pelicans are making my rooting interests even simpler.

[JNort]

I appreciate your reasoning for disliking Lebron. I think he's an all-time talent.
My only issue is that if you disliked every player that participates in on court whining, you'd have very few players to root for.
I lost my favorite team when the Hornets left. Then, I lost my favorite team when the Sonics left. I will root for Blue Devils, including Quinn. Luckily, the Pelicans are making my rooting interests even simpler.
I tend to be just an NBA dork in general. I just root for the storylines, drama, superstars, etc... Now the Hornets are technically my favorite team but them being as bad as they are I just want them to embrace losing so we can get better picks.

I consider LeBron to be the GOAT so I want the Lakers to win it all every year he is there until he retires. After that I will probably cheer for certain players to all get at least one or two rings but for now I don't want the young guys to win anything (Giannis, Embid, Simmons, Towns, etc...). If I had to cheer against LeBron or for some reason they don't make the playoffs then I would pull for Westbrook.

[bundabergdevil]

Having the highest projected chance of winning it all is not the same as being projected as the overall best team. If, for example, you think four teams in the West and two teams in the East are roughly equivalent, the best Eastern team will probably have the best chance of winning it all, even if they're the fourth or even fifth best team in the bunch, because they have the best chance of making the finals and at least a decent chance of winning once they're there.

Good catch, careless language.

[budwom]

I don't usually make predictions, but, i've got a feeling that, no matter who else goes to the lakers, Christopher Walken is telling the story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Cbzrp6I5I) of The King.

I much prefer his pocket watch story...

[lotusland]

I'm on record on DBR as saying that I don't like LeBron (mostly because of his on court whining). I'll also say that I think Davis is a little overrated (perhaps because he gets hurt). With Cheater Green having once again put himself in a position to be carried by a great player, I hope the Lakers lose a lot (sorry QC). Having said all that, I don't think LeBron needs all that much help to win it all. If LeBron and Davis stay healthy and with Quinn there to hit 3's, Kuzma coming into his own, Cousins available and somewhat healthy...I think they are the team to beat. LeBron is just that disruptive, that special.

Hope I'm wrong though.

I wish the Pelicans had a better team mascot because I really want them to do well next season.

Wait, what? You don’t like Pierrie Pelican or the name “Pelicans”?

[Matches]

I tend to be just an NBA dork in general. I just root for the storylines, drama, superstars, etc... Now the Hornets are technically my favorite team but them being as bad as they are I just want them to embrace losing so we can get better picks.



It's hard to root for laundry in the NBA anymore. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing. I've considered the Hornets "my team" but they're one of the worst-run franchises in the league and, under the present system, have no chance of ever becoming a perennial contender. So it's easy to root for, say, the Pelicans - right now - because of Zion and co. But that seems temporary at best - even if Zion stays there long-term one presumes the other pieces will come and go around him.

[arnie]

It's hard to root for laundry in the NBA anymore. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing. I've considered the Hornets "my team" but they're one of the worst-run franchises in the league and, under the present system, have no chance of ever becoming a perennial contender. So it's easy to root for, say, the Pelicans - right now - because of Zion and co. But that seems temporary at best - even if Zion stays there long-term one presumes the other pieces will come and go around him.

If not for following ex-Duke players I’d not pay any attention to the NBA. The desecration of the Hornets by their despicable/useless owner has cured me of investing time into a given franchise. For this coming year I’m a NO blue devils fan.

[elvis14]

If not for following ex-Duke players I’d not pay any attention to the NBA.

I've never gotten all the way there. Having marquee players move more often has changed things greatly. I grew up a Lakers fan (Magic and showtime). Stopped being a Lakers fan the day Shaq signed there (even though Kobe was unreal). Just about the time you start to get comfortable hating a player you find them on 'your' team. So when it comes to NBA I don't really have a team anymore, just players that I really like (or dislike). Heading all my dislike lists are UNCheat players. I hate it when they are on the same team as Duke players. Then there's the Golden State Warriors. They are a team that is lead by one of my favorite players, Curry, that plays beautiful basketball and are just easy to get behind. Closest thing I've had to having a team in years (but I'm not hypocrite enough to proclaim myself a real GSW fan).

I really hope the Pelicans do well next season. My other favorite player is JJ and I suspect Zion will be on that list as well. Also, I'd love to see Jah make a comeback, Frank make a splash and Ingram eat a pizza....I mean continue to improve...

[JNort]

Probably doesn't hurt that my love for the NBA also coincides with my unusual talent for playing NBA 2K games... I don't even like them very much but for some reason I'm unreasonably good and usually ranked in the top 2% of world players for going on for 8 years now.

[53n206]

I've thought, for a long time, that some team owners really like finishing up in the middle of the pack than having to pay super stars to get the chance to win it all. Can't be specific except that the St.Louis football Cardinals struck me that way when they had Bud Wilkinson as their coach. Bud never said that to me but some of his friends did. Anyone agree with me? Possibly mid pack teams lose money so I've been misleading myself. (Thinking here of Charlotte)

[jv001]

If not for following ex-Duke players I’d not pay any attention to the NBA. The desecration of the Hornets by their despicable/useless owner has cured me of investing time into a given franchise. For this coming year I’m a NO blue devils fan.

arnie you said it way better than I could have. I will not root for the Hornets as long as Jordan is involved with the team even if he's the water boy. I'm for all former Duke players and that's about it. I may watch a playoff game or two. GoDuke!

[moonpie23]

i love the NBA.....greatest sport on the planet played by the greatest athletes on the planet.


It's interesting to me that there are not any "real" team rivalries anymore.....most everyone has a favorite team, (or teams) but follow players more than "teams"...

now that the dubs are just "really good", the CAVS/DUBS rivalry has dissipated......who cares if Boston plays LA, or Chicago? or even the spurs?

with free agency, and players calling the shots, will there ever be another real team rivalry? I mean, seriously, i'm gonna throw up in my mouth every time i have to pull for the lakers....

[Matches]

I've thought, for a long time, that some team owners really like finishing up in the middle of the pack than having to pay super stars to get the chance to win it all. Can't be specific except that the St.Louis football Cardinals struck me that way when they had Bud Wilkinson as their coach. Bud never said that to me but some of his friends did. Anyone agree with me? Possibly mid pack teams lose money so I've been misleading myself. (Thinking here of Charlotte)

It's hard to square that with MJ's ultra-competitive personality, but one really does have to wonder sometimes. Being just ok is pretty clearly the worst of all worlds for an NBA team from a competitive standpoint - not good enough to matter, not bad enough to draft franchise-changers. That seems so obvious that it's hard to imagine that the Hornets *aren't* doing it on purpose.

On the other hand there's that old adage about never inferring ill intent from things that can be explained by simple incompetence.

[jimmymax]

I find the NBA boring. During the regular season I might watch the end of the 4th quarter, if the matchup is compelling. Otherwise I just watch the playoff semis/finals. Why would anyone expect MJ's skills to translate to being a good owner? I'm in NC and love to see them suc* -- miss the playoffs: keep drafting Tar Holes, no Devils.

But simply rooting for former Dukies, which for many, Durham has just been a rest stop, is too facile. Free agency has largely eliminated traditional rivalries. I'm left with the inclination to revert to childhood allegiances, and hope for a return to glory of the long hapless Knicks: Reed, Bradley, DeBusschere, Clyde and the Pearl might re-materialize one day.

To top if off, one must live with the fact that many pro sports teams have obscenely rich, often unethical owners that make slimy demands of their cities -- unsustainable I hope.

[SouthernDukie]

Used to root for teams (mainly the Celtics - grew up watching Larry Legend do his thing), but now the only allegiances I have are for Duke players. If a team has one, I'm for them. If not, I don't care. If a team has a Cheater, I root against them. Hence my conflicted view of the upcoming Lakers' season.

[BD80]

...
I really hope the Pelicans do well next season. My other favorite player is JJ and I suspect Zion will be on that list as well. Also, I'd love to see Jah make a comeback, Frank make a splash and Ingram eat a pizza...I mean continue to improve...

If Brandon does eat a pizza, you will probably be able to see it move through him as it is digested, like a wild boar eaten by a python.

[MartyClark]

I find the NBA boring. During the regular season I might watch the end of the 4th quarter, if the matchup is compelling. Otherwise I just watch the playoff semis/finals. Why would anyone expect MJ's skills to translate to being a good owner? I'm in NC and love to see them suc* -- miss the playoffs: keep drafting Tar Heels, no Devils.

But simply rooting for former Dukies, which for many, Durham has just been a rest stop, is too facile. Free agency has largely eliminated traditional rivalries. I'm left with the inclination to revert to childhood allegiances, and hope for a return to glory of the long hapless Knicks: Reed, Bradley, DeBusschere, Clyde and the Pearl might re-materialize one day.

To top if off, one must live with the fact that many pro sports teams have obscenely rich, often unethical owners that make slimy demands of their cities -- unsustainable I hope.

I really liked the NBA when it wasn't all that popular. I used to go to Chicago Bulls games in the late 60's and early 70's when the NBA had a bit of a cult following. My friends and I were all broke but we could get a ticket for a dollar in the upper deck at the old Chicago Stadium. No celebrities there, no pumped in noise, not much glamour. The Bulls' unofficial mascot was a fat guy named "Super Fan" who ran around the court sweating and gasping. Can't go back to those days. I've always had a contrary streak that causes me to dislike things that are trendy and to like things that are relatively unappreciated.

I'm amused by the breathless gossip in this offseason concerning free agents and trades. It's been a 24/7 news cycle full of alleged insiders offering their theories and predictions on things. I admit that I've been sucked in by it and, at times, it's more interesting than watching an actual game.

I won't pay to see an NBA or NFL game. It's just too expensive and most games are covered on t.v. I will accept free tickets and, on the rare occasion when I attend an NBA game, I enjoy it and marvel at the skill and athleticism of the players.

All things considered, I could live without the NBA. I'm happy to see Duke players do well but find that my interest is usually limited to looking at box scores the next morning ( thank you again for the "Devils in the NBA" tab) rather than actually watching games.

On the other hand, I watch every Duke game I can. I also watch every N.C. game that I can. I think sports interest often depends on having a team to root for and a team to root against. I've got that in the Duke-N.C. rivalry.

I guess I'm indifferent to the N.B.A. and am a college basket ball fanatic. I root for the Duke guys in the N.B.A. but some of those seem like relative strangers after only a short year at Duke.

[jv001]

Used to root for teams (mainly the Celtics - grew up watching Larry Legend do his thing), but now the only allegiances I have are for Duke players. If a team has one, I'm for them. If not, I don't care. If a team has a Cheater, I root against them. Hence my conflicted view of the upcoming Lakers' season.

I'm the same when it comes to the NBA. I grew up watching NBA games. I loved the Celts and Lakers. They had exciting players and I really didn't care who won for the most part. Jerry West, Hondo, Russell, etc. The pro team that I loved was the old Carolina Cougars of the ABA. Of course having Bob Verga had a lot to do with that. Today's pro game doesn't give me that excitement. Not the way watching Duke basketball and football does. GoDuke!

[BD80]

I miss the strategy of the old days, the planning that was allowed as they removed the ball from the peach basket.

And the excitement of the jump ball after each basket! I miss that too, it was like the face-off in hockey or lacrosse.

[jv001]

I miss the strategy of the old days, the planning that was allowed as they removed the ball from the peach basket.

And the excitement of the jump ball after each basket! I miss that too, it was like the face-off in hockey or lacrosse.

Bill Russell didn't let the ball go in the peach basket.

[Kedsy]

It's interesting to me that there are not any "real" team rivalries anymore...most everyone has a favorite team, (or teams) but follow players more than "teams"...

now that the dubs are just "really good", the CAVS/DUBS rivalry has dissipated...who cares if Boston plays LA, or Chicago? or even the spurs?

with free agency, and players calling the shots, will there ever be another real team rivalry? I mean, seriously, i'm gonna throw up in my mouth every time i have to pull for the lakers...

Philadelphia and Boston still kinda hate each other. The rivalry was muted while the Sixers were tanking, but at least on the Philly side, it seems pretty active now.

[bundabergdevil]

Philadelphia and Boston still kinda hate each other. The rivalry was muted while the Sixers were tanking, but at least on the Philly side, it seems pretty active now.


I don't have a duck in the fight but I think the Staples Centers battles next year are going to be a lot of fun!

[flyingdutchdevil]

Philadelphia and Boston still kinda hate each other. The rivalry was muted while the Sixers were tanking, but at least on the Philly side, it seems pretty active now.

It's active, but Boston has a few rivals. Our biggest rival is undoubtedly the Lakers.

Philly should absolutely crush the Celtics this year. The 76ers solved one of their biggest kryptonites by signing that player to their team (Horford).

[Troublemaker]

It's active, but Boston has a few rivals. Our biggest rival is undoubtedly the Lakers.

Philly should absolutely crush the Celtics this year. The 76ers solved one of their biggest kryptonites by signing that player to their team (Horford).

Brad Stevens is going to have an incredible bounce-back year, I'm betting. Because that's what the greats do.

I could totally envision Jayson breaking out, Walker having a fantastic year playing for a good organization / great coach, Hayward playing much better his second year back from injury, and Stevens stealing 3-4 wins during the regular season with his end-of-game playcalls / coaching.

If someone wants to give me 3 to 1 on Boston having a better record than Philly (pies / beer/ name it), I would take that. The Celtics are not going to fall off very much if at all, and I envision the players are very motivated to eclipse the 49 wins they had last season with Kyrie and Horford.

[Indoor66]

Greatness is earned by success, not promise of success. Stevens represents the promise of hoped for success.

[JNort]

Greatness is earned by success, not promise of success. Stevens represents the promise of hoped for success.

I mean he has exceeded expectations every year from what I can tell. Last year he didn't but he got to where they were supposed to, and that's with chemistry issues revolving around Kyrie and Rosier (both of whom are now gone).

[superdave]

Brad Stevens is going to have an incredible bounce-back year, I'm betting. Because that's what the greats do.

I could totally envision Jayson breaking out, Walker having a fantastic year playing for a good organization / great coach, Hayward playing much better his second year back from injury, and Stevens stealing 3-4 wins during the regular season with his end-of-game playcalls / coaching.

If someone wants to give me 3 to 1 on Boston having a better record than Philly (pies / beer/ name it), I would take that. The Celtics are not going to fall off very much if at all, and I envision the players are very motivated to eclipse the 49 wins they had last season with Kyrie and Horford.

Boston will miss Horford a lot. Big time influence in the locker room. Elite defender. Stretches the floor.

If Kemba can distribute thew ball better than Kyrie, then it will help a lot. But Kyrie averaged a career high 6.9 assists last seson and Kemba has been stuck below 6 per game. So that seems unlikely.

Up front, Boston has Enes Kanter who is ok I guess. They will rely on Semi to play for than a handful of minutes, and may even play Grant Williams and Robert Williams rotation minutes. I dont think that fares well unless they can play a lot of small ball.

[Troublemaker]

Boston will miss Horford a lot. Big time influence in the locker room. Elite defender. Stretches the floor.

If Kemba can distribute thew ball better than Kyrie, then it will help a lot. But Kyrie averaged a career high 6.9 assists last seson and Kemba has been stuck below 6 per game. So that seems unlikely.

Up front, Boston has Enes Kanter who is ok I guess. They will rely on Semi to play for than a handful of minutes, and may even play Grant Williams and Robert Williams rotation minutes. I dont think that fares well unless they can play a lot of small ball.

Keep in mind Boston is more talented than their 16-17 version (53 wins) (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2017.html) and 15-16 version (48 wins) (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2016.html). Stevens is going to absolutely squeeze the maximum out of this roster, like he did for every team he coached prior to last season. It's a nice "buy low" opportunity for a great coach and good franchise, imo.

You're right that swapping Horford for Kanter (and Kanter's horrid defense) is essentially the big problem. I think Stevens will use deep drop coverage to try to protect Kanter as much as he can. The Celtics definitely can't switch as much as they did in the past.

[tbyers11]

Keep in mind Boston is more talented than their 16-17 version (53 wins) (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2017.html) and 15-16 version (48 wins) (https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2016.html). Stevens is going to absolutely squeeze the maximum out of this roster, like he did for every team he coached prior to last season. It's a nice "buy low" opportunity for a great coach and good franchise, imo.

You're right that swapping Horford for Kanter (and Kanter's horrid defense) is essentially the big problem. I think Stevens will use deep drop coverage to try to protect Kanter as much as he can. The Celtics definitely can't switch as much as they did in the past.

Keep Tatum, Brown, Hayward, and Smart in the rotation

Subtract Kyrie, Horford, Rozier, Marcus Morris from the rotation

Add Walker, Kanter, Langford, and Semi(?) to the rotation with Robert Williams taking Aron Baynes backup 5 minutes

Maybe the pieces and egos fit together better but I don't see a big talent increase.

[TheOldBattleship]

You're right that swapping Horford for Kanter (and Kanter's horrid defense) is essentially the big problem. I think Stevens will use deep drop coverage to try to protect Kanter as much as he can. The Celtics definitely can't switch as much as they did in the past.

How likely do people here think it is that the Celtics spend any significant time going small (or even super small) this year? They've been so good with heavy switching defenses over the past few years (apart from last year, when things were going haywire), and you're probably going to lose most of that in any lineup with Kemba/Kanter. But since they just have so many big wings (and Smart, who can play up multiple positions defensively almost as a big wing because he's so strong) you could see them running out something like Smart, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and either Williams or one of their gazillion versatile PFs (Theis, our good friend Semi, Grant Williams) as the lone big in cases where Kemba's on the bench. That would let them switch, if not 1-5, then at least some approximation of that.

I don't think it's likely, but it would be REALLY fun to see Stephens get wild with it and trot out Kemba, Smart, Brown, Tatum, Hayward for short stints. The post-Hamptons 5 league seems to be moving back towards lineups with a lot of size, especially in the East where you can see teams (say, Milwaukee picking up their second Lopez brother) loading up to deal with the Sixers huge lineups, but that small lineup with be just a terror to defend even if Hayward still doesn't fully have his game back. Since you're not likely to be great defensively with Kanter as defensive pivot, might as well figure out some unique ways to score. (Again, limited minutes only, especially in the regular season. The last thing their wings, especially Hayward, need is to take a ton of punishment trying to fight bigs in the post for 82 games.)

[Troublemaker]

Keep Tatum, Brown, Hayward, and Smart in the rotation

Subtract Kyrie, Horford, Rozier, Marcus Morris from the rotation

Add Walker, Kanter, Langford, and Semi(?) to the rotation with Robert Williams taking Aron Baynes backup 5 minutes

Maybe the pieces and egos fit together better but I don't see a big talent increase.

Kyrie, Jayson, and Hayward weren't on the team until the 17-18 season, though. And Brown was only a rookie in 16-17.

(My guess is you misread my post and are off by a year).


How likely do people here think it is that the Celtics spend any significant time going small (or even super small) this year? They've been so good with heavy switching defenses over the past few years (apart from last year, when things were going haywire), and you're probably going to lose most of that in any lineup with Kemba/Kanter. But since they just have so many big wings (and Smart, who can play up multiple positions defensively almost as a big wing because he's so strong) you could see them running out something like Smart, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and either Williams or one of their gazillion versatile PFs (Theis, our good friend Semi, Grant Williams) as the lone big in cases where Kemba's on the bench. That would let them switch, if not 1-5, then at least some approximation of that.

I don't think it's likely, but it would be REALLY fun to see Stephens get wild with it and trot out Kemba, Smart, Brown, Tatum, Hayward for short stints. The post-Hamptons 5 league seems to be moving back towards lineups with a lot of size, especially in the East where you can see teams (say, Milwaukee picking up their second Lopez brother) loading up to deal with the Sixers huge lineups, but that small lineup with be just a terror to defend even if Hayward still doesn't fully have his game back.

Fairly likely, I would say. I think you've laid out he idea well.

[tbyers11]

Kyrie, Jayson, and Hayward weren't on the team until the 17-18 season, though. And Brown was only a rookie in 16-17.

(My guess is you misread my post and are off by a year).



D'oh. My bad

19-20 Celtics are more way more talented than the 15-16 and 16-17 teams.

I concur that they should be likely to beat those win totals from the POV that sheer talent USUALLY wins out in a battle with team chemistry

[HereBeforeCoachK]

To top if off, one must live with the fact that many pro sports teams have obscenely rich, often unethical owners that make slimy demands of their cities -- unsustainable I hope.

The NBA is obscenely rich at all levels, including the players...they have 82 products a year to sell, and much smaller rosters than any other of the 4 major sports. This translates into MO MONEY for all involved.

As for owners being obscenely rich, they are to own an NBA franchise, but when they pay 100 million on "luxury tax" in a season, they may not do all that well on the bottom line.

As for pro sports franchises making demands - (the NFL is the worst for this due to the cost of an NFL stadium) - they only get those tax breaks when the voters of that city want them. You may or may not like it (and I"m not saying it's either good or bad) - but you shouldn't fret over it - because it's simply a deal between the voters of a city and the team, based on the idea that the team can do for that city what no other business can. It's not at all like being taxed by the IRS with no say in the matter.

This of it like this: LeBron can do for an NBA team what no one else can...so he gets very special treatment. A pro sports franchise can do for a city, an area, maybe even a state, what no other business can...so yes, they get special treatment. (As can major companies like Amazon, etc). Some of these deals work out great for cities, and some don't....just like some deals with super star salaries work out, and some don't.

[Indoor66]

The NBA is obscenely rich at all levels, including the players...they have 82 products a year to sell, and much smaller rosters than any other of the 4 major sports. This translates into MO MONEY for all involved.

As for owners being obscenely rich, they are to own an NBA franchise, but when they pay 100 million on "luxury tax" in a season, they may not do all that well on the bottom line.

As for pro sports franchises making demands - (the NFL is the worst for this due to the cost of an NFL stadium) - they only get those tax breaks when the voters of that city want them. You may or may not like it (and I"m not saying it's either good or bad) - but you shouldn't fret over it - because it's simply a deal between the voters of a city and the team, based on the idea that the team can do for that city what no other business can. It's not at all like being taxed by the IRS with no say in the matter.

This of it like this: LeBron can do for an NBA team what no one else can...so he gets very special treatment. A pro sports franchise can do for a city, an area, maybe even a state, what no other business can...so yes, they get special treatment. (As can major companies like Amazon, etc). Some of these deals work out great for cities, and some don't...just like some deals with super star salaries work out, and some don't.

That is a definitive opinion.

[Turk]

I don't have a duck in the fight but I think the Staples Centers battles next year are going to be a lot of fun!

I'm guessing you don't have any dogs on the pond, either. (Not a bad way to beat the heat...) :cool:

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'm guessing you don't have any dogs on the pond, either. (Not a bad way to beat the heat...) :cool:

Dogs in the pond also a great way to scare some Pelicans...

[BD80]

Dogs in the pond also a great way to scare some Pelicans...

Depends, do you have those dogs in a row?

[Reilly]

Depends, do you have those dogs in a row?

Y'know what they say, if you're not the lead pelican flying in formation, the view never changes.

[Indoor66]

Depends, do you have those dogs in a row?

Also depends on what else is in the pond.

[superdave]

I was listening to an NBA podcast - cant remember which one - and the guys were putting teams into tiers. Contenders, Playoff Teams, Borderline Teams, Tankers, etc.

I was surprised they didnt have Denver or Utah in the contenders buckets. Both were playoff teams and upgraded their rosters slightly while everyone else shuffled the deck a lot. Does continuity matter? Denver won 54 games and added Grant. They ought to improve by a few games and have a decent shot at being the 1 seed.

Utah added Conley, Bogdanovic, Jeff Green and Ed Davis to a team that won 50 games last season. They upgraded PG and their rotation.

What am I missing here? Do pundits really think that the Lakers with little to no rotation are the odds-on favorites to win? Didnt Toronto just blow up that idea?

[Truth&Justise]

I was surprised they didnt have Denver or Utah in the contenders buckets. Both were playoff teams and upgraded their rosters slightly while everyone else shuffled the deck a lot. Does continuity matter?

Continuity matters, but many championship teams have shown that having stars matters even more. Stars in basketball have an outsized influence as compared to other sports. Utah and Denver have great rosters and should be near the top of the West, but you can only play 5 players at a time, so you're at a disadvantage if you don't have a LeBron, Kawhi, Curry, etc. Now not every team with a star is a contender, but having a star can cover for many other flaws (see Zion's effect on last year's Duke team).


Do pundits really think that the Lakers with little to no rotation are the odds-on favorites to win? Didnt Toronto just blow up that idea?

Toronto showed that you can win a title with only 8 players. So that bodes well for teams with a few stars and a short rotation.

[phaedrus]

Continuity matters, but many championship teams have shown that having stars matters even more. Stars in basketball have an outsized influence as compared to other sports. Utah and Denver have great rosters and should be near the top of the West, but you can only play 5 players at a time, so you're at a disadvantage if you don't have a LeBron, Kawhi, Curry, etc. Now not every team with a star is a contender, but having a star can cover for many other flaws (see Zion's effect on last year's Duke team).



Toronto showed that you can win a title with only 8 players. So that bodes well for teams with a few stars and a short rotation.

Jokic was first team All-NBA and Gobert was third team.

[Troublemaker]

I was listening to an NBA podcast - cant remember which one - and the guys were putting teams into tiers. Contenders, Playoff Teams, Borderline Teams, Tankers, etc.

I was surprised they didnt have Denver or Utah in the contenders buckets. Both were playoff teams and upgraded their rosters slightly while everyone else shuffled the deck a lot. Does continuity matter? Denver won 54 games and added Grant. They ought to improve by a few games and have a decent shot at being the 1 seed.

Utah added Conley, Bogdanovic, Jeff Green and Ed Davis to a team that won 50 games last season. They upgraded PG and their rotation.

What am I missing here? Do pundits really think that the Lakers with little to no rotation are the odds-on favorites to win? Didnt Toronto just blow up that idea?

I would definitely take the Lakers in a hypothetical playoff series with either Denver or Utah. (I would put a pie on it now, too, and wait, uh, 10 months to collect). It does seem like teams almost always need that superstar player to win a championship, unfortunately. I like Denver and Utah and wish it weren't so but they are probably more like pre-Kawhi Toronto (very good regular season team) than true title contenders.

And I would say the Lakers did okay building out their depth. They should have Caldwell-Pope, Dudley, and Cousins coming off the bench at the very least.

[Matches]

I would definitely take the Lakers in a hypothetical playoff series with either Denver or Utah. (I would put a pie on it now, too, and wait, uh, 10 months to collect). It does seem like teams almost always need that superstar player to win a championship, unfortunately. I like Denver and Utah and wish it weren't so but they are probably more like pre-Kawhi Toronto (very good regular season team) than true title contenders.



The last team I can recall winning a title without a "true superstar" was the 2004 Pistons. *Maybe* the 2011 Mavs though Novitski was right on the cusp on superstardom. It can be done, but it's really rare.

[bundabergdevil]

The last team I can recall winning a title without a "true superstar" was the 2004 Pistons. *Maybe* the 2011 Mavs though Novitski was right on the cusp on superstardom. It can be done, but it's really rare.

I'd exclude 2011 Mavs. By that time, Nowitzki had won his MVP, been a 5-time 1st team all NBA and been an All Star for a decade. He was at the height (pun intended) of his powers.

[phaedrus]

The last team I can recall winning a title without a "true superstar" was the 2004 Pistons. *Maybe* the 2011 Mavs though Novitski was right on the cusp on superstardom. It can be done, but it's really rare.

Jokic last season was superior to 33-year old Dirk in 2011, in my view.

The 2014 Spurs relied on a not-yet-prime Kawhi Leonard (22 years old), and past-prime Tim Duncan (37), Tony Parker (31), and Manu Ginobili (36). Not to say that I think next year's Nuggets are more talented or better than those Spurs, but that Spurs team didn't exactly drip with superstar talent (at least not superstars-in-their-prime talent).

[phaedrus]

I'd exclude 2011 Mavs. By that time, Nowitzki had won his MVP, been a 5-time 1st team all NBA and been an All Star for a decade. He was at the height (pun intended) of his powers.

Dirk had indeed accomplished a lot by 2011 (and he was still all of seven feet tall), but he had declined a bit from his best years. He won his MVP award five seasons earlier (at age 28) and in 2010-2011 probably had his least productive season statistically since his second year, though it was still very good.

[bundabergdevil]

Dirk had indeed accomplished a lot by 2011 (and he was still all of seven feet tall), but he had declined a bit from his best years. He won his MVP award five seasons earlier (at age 28) and in 2010-2011 probably had his least productive season statistically since his second year, though it was still very good.

Fair enough. I'd agree more with your characterization that he had declined a bit than by Matches' characterization that he was on the cusp of superstardom in 2011. My point was that he was an established super star by 2011. On the cusp would have been his 2005/6 seasons and first finals appearance and MVP award.

[JasonEvans]

Not saying it will happen, but if the Nuggets win the title then it will likely be because Jokic made the leap from really, really good to one of the league's great players... and some would say he might already be there.

I think the Nuggets and Jazz are both very strong title contenders... perhaps not quite alongside the Lakers, Clippers, Bucks, and Sixers... but right there in the next tier with the Rockets, Warriors, and Celtics. Any of those 9 teams winning the title would not be a total shocker to me. The other 31 teams are considerably less likely.

[Matches]

Fair enough. I'd agree more with your characterization that he had declined a bit than by Matches' characterization that he was on the cusp of superstardom in 2011. My point was that he was an established super star by 2011. On the cusp would have been his 2005/6 seasons and first finals appearance and MVP award.

Perhaps I used the word "cusp" incorrectly. What I meant was that Dirk was borderline as a superstar at that time. You could make an argument either way. I wasn't intending to comment on his career arc, of which your description is certainly accurate.


Jokic last season was superior to 33-year old Dirk in 2011, in my view.

The 2014 Spurs relied on a not-yet-prime Kawhi Leonard (22 years old), and past-prime Tim Duncan (37), Tony Parker (31), and Manu Ginobili (36). Not to say that I think next year's Nuggets are more talented or better than those Spurs, but that Spurs team didn't exactly drip with superstar talent (at least not superstars-in-their-prime talent).

I would have ranked Kawhi as a top-10 player at that time. Agreed he wasn't yet in his prime but he was really really good - much better than anyone on the 2004 Pistons, for example. But yea, the Spurs had a great mix of continuity and star power, which is the best of both worlds.

[Troublemaker]

Not sure about the regular season, but Dirk was dominant and the best player in the 2011 playoffs, imo.

I mean, that's what the "superstar requirement" is really about. Does the team in question have a player who can be the best player in the playoffs (or perhaps at least top-3)?

[cato]

Jokic last season was superior to 33-year old Dirk in 2011, in my view.

The 2014 Spurs relied on a not-yet-prime Kawhi Leonard (22 years old), and past-prime Tim Duncan (37), Tony Parker (31), and Manu Ginobili (36). Not to say that I think next year's Nuggets are more talented or better than those Spurs, but that Spurs team didn't exactly drip with superstar talent (at least not superstars-in-their-prime talent).

Kawhi Leonard may have been only 22, but he was already one of the very best two-way players in the league. Good enough to beat Lebron and earn Finals MVP honors doing so.

[superdave]

Continuity matters, but many championship teams have shown that having stars matters even more. Stars in basketball have an outsized influence as compared to other sports. Utah and Denver have great rosters and should be near the top of the West, but you can only play 5 players at a time, so you're at a disadvantage if you don't have a LeBron, Kawhi, Curry, etc. Now not every team with a star is a contender, but having a star can cover for many other flaws (see Zion's effect on last year's Duke team).

Toronto showed that you can win a title with only 8 players. So that bodes well for teams with a few stars and a short rotation.

Van Vleet shot 16-40 from 3 in the Finals and averaged 14 ppg.

Siakam averaged 20 ppg for the series and put up 32 in game 1 and 26 in the clincher.

Who is doing that for the Lakers next year outside Lebron and Davis? I think they screwed up the roster so bad last year that their rotation will be a mess this year.

Toronto's 8 >>>> Lakers 8

[TheOldBattleship]

Jokic was first team All-NBA and Gobert was third team.

Honestly, I think that this says a lot about how people think of NBA stars: it's not big men stars that are generally seen to matter in championship contention today, but instead big guards and forwards who initiate the offense from the perimeter (obviously Jokic runs a lot of the offense from the elbow and further out for the Nuggets, but there's a clear difference in the way he does that from how, say, Harden or LeBron runs an offense or how Kawhi ran the offense for Toronto in the playoffs). And, importantly here, the other major consideration is how well-equipped teams are to stop those types of players, both with good individual wing defenders and with switchable, like-for-like lineups.

That's the big question-mark for Denver, I think: they don't have a star guard or forward at this point (though they placed a pretty big bet on Murray becoming that guy this summer), and, if they run up against the Clippers in the playoffs, who do they have who can effectively guard Paul George over a seven-game series, much less George AND Leonard? Some mix of Torrey Craig, Will Barton, and Jerami Grant? Gary Harris or Beasley if they play up a position? Jarred Vanderbilt if he carves out a role? Grant and Craig are tough, Grant particularly, but you can see where the pundits' doubts are coming from there.

Utah added some quality wing pieces over the summer (Bogdanovic is an underrated defender and Jeff Green, for all the hate he gets, is still pretty good), but their big guards/wings who are back (Ingles, in particular, but also Royce O'Neale and Donovan Mitchell, despite his reasonable counting stats) all were a mess in the playoffs last year, both offensively and, more concerning, defensively. Conley should help take a LOT of pressure off of that group, which can give some confidence back in the offense, but Harden just completely carved up the non-switching, funnel-him-to-Gobert defense that Utah tried to stick with in the playoffs last year. Might just have been a particularly bad playoff matchup, but for a team whose star is a DPOY, their complete defensive ineptitude and lack of anybody who could even pretend to guard James Harden, one of those big guard stars who initiates offense from the perimeter, effectively (even Ricky Rubio is gone this year) is, to me, the clear reason why there's such a lack of faith in them. Who do they have to go to when they are forced to break out of their system offensively in the playoffs? And if their defensive system isn't working, do they have guys who can guard a Harden or a LeBron or a Leonard going iso play after play down the stretch of a playoff game?

Long story short, I just don't think that people see even the very best pure bigs in the game as gamechanging, particularly in the playoffs, in quite the same way that they do guys like Kawhi, George, LeBron, Curry, Harden, etc. And the fact that both Utah and Denver are pretty weak guarding those types of perimeter stars just compounds the issue, especially since neither Gobert or Jokic are going to be effective switching out onto those guys. Of course, this could all just be a hangover from the Golden State/Cleveland era of dominance, but that's my sense of the general perception these days.

[moonpie23]

looks like that guy who used to be on mike and mike agrees with me.... (http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=27263155)

[hallcity]

The NBA TV schedule for this coming season (https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/nba-tv-schedule/) is out. I count 26 Pelicans games on national TV. The games seem to trail off late in the season. I guess the TV people don't think the Pelicans will make the playoffs or maybe it's mostly that the late season TV schedule can be adjusted. I'm pretty sure that if Zion were still at Duke this coming season, EVERY one of his games would be on national TV and would get more exposure. If only ESPN could have paid Zion to stay at Duke.