ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East

[Muzzy66]

I hope but #5 is what i expect if that

Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us

I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets? :O

They barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

The Nets lost their best player (Russell, who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) and replaced him with Kyrie (who averaged 24 / 7 / 5).  They really didn't do much else at all, and while Kyrie is definitely an improvement over Russell, how many wins does he actually add?

Because looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much), and the Celtics are pretty much winning every other position. 

Personally I think the finish will be something like:

1 - Bucks
2 - Pacers
3 - Celtics
4 - Sixers
=5 - Raptors
=5 - Nets

With seeds 2 through to 4 (Pacers, Celtics, Sixers) capable of falling in any order. 

The Nets are Kyrie and a team full of role players - I can't see them beating the Bucks, Celtics, Sixers or Pacers.

Brooklyn started off the year very slowly and was sitting at 8-18.  They finished 34-22.  They had several injuries and were a very young team.  I expect Allen, LeVert, Kurucs, and Prince to continue to grow.  They are very deep and have the right mix of veterans and young players.

I think they upgraded their roster a great deal and it is a lot more than just Irving for Russell as I like Jordan, Chandler, Prince, Temple, Nwaba.

PG - Irving, Dinwiddie
SG - Harris, Temple, Nwaba
SF - LeVert, Chandler
PF - Prince, Kurucs
C - Jordan, Allen

I think that is an upper 40's win team.  Same general range as the C's, but I'd put the Nets slightly ahead as I think they have a much more balanced and a much deeper roster, which matters a great deal over the grind of the regular season.

Each to their own, but I don't think the Nets will get close to the Celtics

Aside from Kyrie, nobody on that roster comes close to a healthy Gordon Hayward (whom I believe will be healthy this year).  I don't think anybody on that roster comes close to Jayson Tatum with another year of development.  I have serious question marks about whether anybody on that team can match Jaylen Brown with another year of development.  I don't believe DeAndre Jordan is any better then Enes Kanter - he's similarly one dimensional, just on the opposite end.  I think Smart is the best perimeter defender and biggest "x factor" on either of those two rosters

I can see your point about depth, admittedly it's one thing I worry about with this squad. I like Smart and I like Theiss, but the rest of that bench is full of question marks.  At least one of those young guys is going to need to step up in a big way and make a consistent impact off the bench - I feel one of them will.  But I don't feel the Nets really have all that much depth either.

But looking at the Nets roster...I just can't help but feel that if you take Kyrie off that roster you have a bottom 10 team.  And I don't think Kyrie is the type of star who adds a ton of wins because he's always been the selfish type of star.

If there is anything that potentially works in the Nets favour it would be depth and 'fit' of their parts, as their is some question about how well Boston's parts will fit together. 

Regardless, I just see the inexperienced Nets as a genuine threat in the East.

[Hoopvortex]

Yeah, I think it is as nonsensical a model as you can get as it's based, for the most part, on ESPN's garbage RPM stat

Vehemence, or just rhetoric?

No, not garbage. Can't tell what your objection to it is - perhaps valid, but it hardly seems likely that it would justify dismissing the stat entirely, as you seem to be doing.

Its big virtue is that it controls for who else is on the floor - that's a big step up from ortg and drtg, and from the raw +/- that you get in the box scores nowadays.

My own objection to it is that using box score priors biases it in favor of players who get more of the countable stuff in the box score. 

Like any statistic, it isn't the whole truth about a player - what you might call the Siren Song of the Single Statistic.

What I like about it most is that for certain players it suggests surprising or provocative things. It doesn't like Klay's defense very much, for example, despite conventional wisdom. Then you can ask yourself, well why not? And look for yourself.

The big problem with all the different types of statistics, including the various flavors of plus/minus, is that the sample sizes are seldom big enough, while the sample sizes for the different players vary so widely.

(which could be Pelton's stat, IDK),

It's not.

which I always have hated, even more so because they refuse to give the formula for the stat.

Yes, what's up with that.

Having said that, I don't think that I could evaluate it anyway.

I do trust that the plus/minus module of it, controlling for who else is on the court, has been done accurately.

I don't know how to evaluate how much weight they've given to box score priors, even if I knew what it was or how they've translated them.

I also wish that they'd make their web page sortable in several dimensions, like by team, and let you search by individual player.

Anyway, I find it to be a very useful stat that is looking at the big picture; that's absolutely essential, and I don't know a better place to get what it gives you.

RPM is a stat that projects future performance. An entire part of the stat estimates an impact a player has on his individual team's past net +/- to predict what the player will do going forward.

Year in and year out a look at the RPM standings shows some of the goofiest leaderboards in stats. Danny Young is apparently one of the best RPM players last year, 13th in the league, better than Siakim and Leonard, much better overall and impactful players that was on Green's team. In 2019 Chris Paul had the highest RPM in the league and Robert Covington was 8th. In 2017 Jae Crowder and Amir Johnson had the 20th and 21st highest RPM in the league. That was IT's unreal year where he was almost MVP level. He ended up 59th in RPM that year.

"Danny Young" - I think that you mean Danny Green?

First, you've made a couple of mistakes:

In 2019, it was Paul George who had the highest RPM in the league, not Chris Paul. Similar names?

In 2019, Covington was 8th among small forwards, not overall.

We don't need to say much about IT's defense; as I think you surely noticed, it sucked. If you just look at RPM for offense for him, he was indeed, as you say, "almost MVP level", at 6th overall. But RPM is not measuring just the offensive contribution, nor is it being used to pick MVP candidates.

It doesn't look worth it to do a whole big thing here.  I'll just return briefly to a point I was making earlier: it's more useful to ask why the stat is giving you what it's giving you than to just take the conventional wisdom and see if the stat fits it.

You can't win without big-time shot creators, and those are the players that are commonly thought of as the best players - AND you can't win without them. But if you've got them (like Toronto did last season), then the complementary players like Danny Green don't have to do what they don't do well.

It happened that Green was entirely healthy as well, and was playing D like he used to a couple of seasons ago. More than that, though: the gravity that Green had (he shot a tremendous .455 from 3 on a big sample size) helped create that phenomenal ball movement they had last year, and the single coverage and spacing that Leonard and Lowry and Siakam enjoyed (and Norman Powell and Fred, too...).

So while Green didn't have to create shots, and in fact it was better if he wasn't creating shots, all the same he was key to them creating shots, and their effectiveness as a team in doing that bumps up his RPM.

Enough. I don't need to spend more time on this one.

[Muzzy66]

"Danny Young" - I think that you mean Danny Green?

First, you've made a couple of mistakes:

In 2019, it was Paul George who had the highest RPM in the league, not Chris Paul. Similar names?

In 2019, Covington was 8th among small forwards, not overall.

We don't need to say much about IT's defense; as I think you surely noticed, it sucked. If you just look at RPM for offense for him, he was indeed, as you say, "almost MVP level", at 6th overall. But RPM is not measuring just the offensive contribution, nor is it being used to pick MVP candidates.

It doesn't look worth it to do a whole big thing here.  I'll just return briefly to a point I was making earlier: it's more useful to ask why the stat is giving you what it's giving you than to just take the conventional wisdom and see if the stat fits it.

You can't win without big-time shot creators, and those are the players that are commonly thought of as the best players - AND you can't win without them. But if you've got them (like Toronto did last season), then the complementary players like Danny Green don't have to do what they don't do well.

It happened that Green was entirely healthy as well, and was playing D like he used to a couple of seasons ago. More than that, though: the gravity that Green had (he shot a tremendous .455 from 3 on a big sample size) helped create that phenomenal ball movement they had last year, and the single coverage and spacing that Leonard and Lowry and Siakam enjoyed (and Norman Powell and Fred, too...).

So while Green didn't have to create shots, and in fact it was better if he wasn't creating shots, all the same he was key to them creating shots, and their effectiveness as a team in doing that bumps up his RPM.

Enough. I don't need to spend more time on this one.

Well said - I present you with a TP sir

[nickagneta]

Yeah, I think it is as nonsensical a model as you can get as it's based, for the most part, on ESPN's garbage RPM stat

Vehemence, or just rhetoric?

No, not garbage. Can't tell what your objection to it is - perhaps valid, but it hardly seems likely that it would justify dismissing the stat entirely, as you seem to be doing.

Its big virtue is that it controls for who else is on the floor - that's a big step up from ortg and drtg, and from the raw +/- that you get in the box scores nowadays.

My own objection to it is that using box score priors biases it in favor of players who get more of the countable stuff in the box score. 

Like any statistic, it isn't the whole truth about a player - what you might call the Siren Song of the Single Statistic.

What I like about it most is that for certain players it suggests surprising or provocative things. It doesn't like Klay's defense very much, for example, despite conventional wisdom. Then you can ask yourself, well why not? And look for yourself.

The big problem with all the different types of statistics, including the various flavors of plus/minus, is that the sample sizes are seldom big enough, while the sample sizes for the different players vary so widely.

(which could be Pelton's stat, IDK),

It's not.

which I always have hated, even more so because they refuse to give the formula for the stat.

Yes, what's up with that.

Having said that, I don't think that I could evaluate it anyway.

I do trust that the plus/minus module of it, controlling for who else is on the court, has been done accurately.

I don't know how to evaluate how much weight they've given to box score priors, even if I knew what it was or how they've translated them.

I also wish that they'd make their web page sortable in several dimensions, like by team, and let you search by individual player.

Anyway, I find it to be a very useful stat that is looking at the big picture; that's absolutely essential, and I don't know a better place to get what it gives you.

RPM is a stat that projects future performance. An entire part of the stat estimates an impact a player has on his individual team's past net +/- to predict what the player will do going forward.

Year in and year out a look at the RPM standings shows some of the goofiest leaderboards in stats. Danny Young is apparently one of the best RPM players last year, 13th in the league, better than Siakim and Leonard, much better overall and impactful players that was on Green's team. In 2019 Chris Paul had the highest RPM in the league and Robert Covington was 8th. In 2017 Jae Crowder and Amir Johnson had the 20th and 21st highest RPM in the league. That was IT's unreal year where he was almost MVP level. He ended up 59th in RPM that year.

"Danny Young" - I think that you mean Danny Green?

First, you've made a couple of mistakes:

In 2019, it was Paul George who had the highest RPM in the league, not Chris Paul. Similar names?

In 2019, Covington was 8th among small forwards, not overall.

We don't need to say much about IT's defense; as I think you surely noticed, it sucked. If you just look at RPM for offense for him, he was indeed, as you say, "almost MVP level", at 6th overall. But RPM is not measuring just the offensive contribution, nor is it being used to pick MVP candidates.

It doesn't look worth it to do a whole big thing here.  I'll just return briefly to a point I was making earlier: it's more useful to ask why the stat is giving you what it's giving you than to just take the conventional wisdom and see if the stat fits it.

You can't win without big-time shot creators, and those are the players that are commonly thought of as the best players - AND you can't win without them. But if you've got them (like Toronto did last season), then the complementary players like Danny Green don't have to do what they don't do well.

It happened that Green was entirely healthy as well, and was playing D like he used to a couple of seasons ago. More than that, though: the gravity that Green had (he shot a tremendous .455 from 3 on a big sample size) helped create that phenomenal ball movement they had last year, and the single coverage and spacing that Leonard and Lowry and Siakam enjoyed (and Norman Powell and Fred, too...).

So while Green didn't have to create shots, and in fact it was better if he wasn't creating shots, all the same he was key to them creating shots, and their effectiveness as a team in doing that bumps up his RPM.

Enough. I don't need to spend more time on this one.

Yes, it was Danny Green being 13th in 2019. I also made another mistake, a typo. I should have said in 2018 CP3 was #1 and RoCo #8 that year. That was just a typing mistake.

And your argument for IT being so bad at defense that it lowered his RPM to 59th in the league. Well, if IT played like an MVP on offense and was so bad on defense it lowered his RPM to 59th, then how did Crowder and Amir Johnson end up at 20 and 21 in the league that year? What were they so great at that year that they were able to overcome such average looking stats nearly across the board and be ranked in the top 21 in the league that year in RPM? When you justify IT's ranking that year, the whole argument for your justification is destroyed by Amir and Jae being ranked 20th and 21st in the league.

[Moranis]

I hope but #5 is what i expect if that

Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us

I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets? :O

They barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

The Nets lost their best player (Russell, who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) and replaced him with Kyrie (who averaged 24 / 7 / 5).  They really didn't do much else at all, and while Kyrie is definitely an improvement over Russell, how many wins does he actually add?

Because looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much), and the Celtics are pretty much winning every other position. 

Personally I think the finish will be something like:

1 - Bucks
2 - Pacers
3 - Celtics
4 - Sixers
=5 - Raptors
=5 - Nets

With seeds 2 through to 4 (Pacers, Celtics, Sixers) capable of falling in any order. 

The Nets are Kyrie and a team full of role players - I can't see them beating the Bucks, Celtics, Sixers or Pacers.

Brooklyn started off the year very slowly and was sitting at 8-18.  They finished 34-22.  They had several injuries and were a very young team.  I expect Allen, LeVert, Kurucs, and Prince to continue to grow.  They are very deep and have the right mix of veterans and young players.

I think they upgraded their roster a great deal and it is a lot more than just Irving for Russell as I like Jordan, Chandler, Prince, Temple, Nwaba.

PG - Irving, Dinwiddie
SG - Harris, Temple, Nwaba
SF - LeVert, Chandler
PF - Prince, Kurucs
C - Jordan, Allen

I think that is an upper 40's win team.  Same general range as the C's, but I'd put the Nets slightly ahead as I think they have a much more balanced and a much deeper roster, which matters a great deal over the grind of the regular season.

How exactly are they much more balanced / deeper than us? They have a similar issue to us in that they have no genuine 4. They also have one of the worse defensive back-courts in the league and not great wing depth.

Also as far as them being young, they really are not that young. Harris will be 28 when season starts. Dinwiddie is 26. Levers will be 25. Not saying they are washed up, but they are probably not making a dramatic inprovement at that age. Allen is really their only true young guy at 21. I believe Robert Williams, Brown, tatum and Langford are all 22 or under.

Dude, did you even read my post.  I mean seriously, I mentioned Allen, Kurucs, LeVert, and Prince.  Then you go off on this weird tangent about players I didn't mention at all.  If you are going to respond to my posts, you need to actually respond to my posts and not just say whatever the hell you want with almost no relation to my post at all.

[Moranis]

I hope but #5 is what i expect if that

Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us

I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets? :O

They barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

The Nets lost their best player (Russell, who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) and replaced him with Kyrie (who averaged 24 / 7 / 5).  They really didn't do much else at all, and while Kyrie is definitely an improvement over Russell, how many wins does he actually add?

Because looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much), and the Celtics are pretty much winning every other position. 

Personally I think the finish will be something like:

1 - Bucks
2 - Pacers
3 - Celtics
4 - Sixers
=5 - Raptors
=5 - Nets

With seeds 2 through to 4 (Pacers, Celtics, Sixers) capable of falling in any order. 

The Nets are Kyrie and a team full of role players - I can't see them beating the Bucks, Celtics, Sixers or Pacers.

Brooklyn started off the year very slowly and was sitting at 8-18.  They finished 34-22.  They had several injuries and were a very young team.  I expect Allen, LeVert, Kurucs, and Prince to continue to grow.  They are very deep and have the right mix of veterans and young players.

I think they upgraded their roster a great deal and it is a lot more than just Irving for Russell as I like Jordan, Chandler, Prince, Temple, Nwaba.

PG - Irving, Dinwiddie
SG - Harris, Temple, Nwaba
SF - LeVert, Chandler
PF - Prince, Kurucs
C - Jordan, Allen

I think that is an upper 40's win team.  Same general range as the C's, but I'd put the Nets slightly ahead as I think they have a much more balanced and a much deeper roster, which matters a great deal over the grind of the regular season.

How exactly are they much more balanced / deeper than us? They have a similar issue to us in that they have no genuine 4. They also have one of the worse defensive back-courts in the league and not great wing depth.

Kurucs is a straight up 4.  Started 46 games there as a 20 year old rookie last year.  6'9" pretty decent overall skills.  Should see a jump in skills.  May start instead of Prince.  Prince is obviously more of a SF, but he has a pretty big frame.  Similar to Tatum in that regard.

They can go 2 deep at every position (obviously varying skill level).  Boston has basically 6 players who you know what they are.  The rest of the roster is a gigantic unknown.  Even players like Theis and Semi that were on the team last year, you really have no idea what they are going to be. 

The Nets won 42 games and got better.  I think Boston has regressed slightly.  Downgrading talent in their best player and another starting position, losing a lot of key bench players without replacing them with anyone other than rookies (Morris, Rozier, and Baynes).  I expect a slight regression from Boston.  Put those together and I think the Nets are a better regular season team than the C's.  Now maybe in the playoffs where you shrink rotations you end up with a different result, but the regular season is long and a grind, and in that Boston has far more issues than Brooklyn.

[ederson]

Rozier last season cannot by anymeans be considered a key bench player.

His play time may indicate it but his production isn't. Filling his gap won't be a problem

[Vox_Populi]

Kevin Pelton's projections are consistently some of the best around. Obviously nothing is set in stone, but I'd take this as a good sign.

[celticsclay]

I hope but #5 is what i expect if that

Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us

I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets? :O

They barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

The Nets lost their best player (Russell, who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) and replaced him with Kyrie (who averaged 24 / 7 / 5).  They really didn't do much else at all, and while Kyrie is definitely an improvement over Russell, how many wins does he actually add?

Because looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much), and the Celtics are pretty much winning every other position. 

Personally I think the finish will be something like:

1 - Bucks
2 - Pacers
3 - Celtics
4 - Sixers
=5 - Raptors
=5 - Nets

With seeds 2 through to 4 (Pacers, Celtics, Sixers) capable of falling in any order. 

The Nets are Kyrie and a team full of role players - I can't see them beating the Bucks, Celtics, Sixers or Pacers.

Brooklyn started off the year very slowly and was sitting at 8-18.  They finished 34-22.  They had several injuries and were a very young team.  I expect Allen, LeVert, Kurucs, and Prince to continue to grow.  They are very deep and have the right mix of veterans and young players.

I think they upgraded their roster a great deal and it is a lot more than just Irving for Russell as I like Jordan, Chandler, Prince, Temple, Nwaba.

PG - Irving, Dinwiddie
SG - Harris, Temple, Nwaba
SF - LeVert, Chandler
PF - Prince, Kurucs
C - Jordan, Allen

I think that is an upper 40's win team.  Same general range as the C's, but I'd put the Nets slightly ahead as I think they have a much more balanced and a much deeper roster, which matters a great deal over the grind of the regular season.

How exactly are they much more balanced / deeper than us? They have a similar issue to us in that they have no genuine 4. They also have one of the worse defensive back-courts in the league and not great wing depth.

Also as far as them being young, they really are not that young. Harris will be 28 when season starts. Dinwiddie is 26. Levers will be 25. Not saying they are washed up, but they are probably not making a dramatic inprovement at that age. Allen is really their only true young guy at 21. I believe Robert Williams, Brown, tatum and Langford are all 22 or under.

Dude, did you even read my post.  I mean seriously, I mentioned Allen, Kurucs, LeVert, and Prince.  Then you go off on this weird tangent about players I didn't mention at all.  If you are going to respond to my posts, you need to actually respond to my posts and not just say whatever the hell you want with almost no relation to my post at all.

I thought I made a pretty respectful reasonable response. I apologize that I mentioned dinwiddie when you didn’t specifically mention him. I don’t think that really warrants this kind of response. You mentioned Harris as their starter in your previous post. I also did specifically mention levert and Allen and was pointing out that levert is not that young. My point is the same with Prince as he is going to be 26 in March. He is two weeks younger than Marcus smart and I don’t think anyone considers smart a young guy that is going to make a big jump from being a young player. I did already acknowledge that Allen is their one young potentially higher end talent in my eyes. kurucs is young too but I just don’t see him as more than bench player on a good team (you have him as the backup also) that doesn’t have the upside of our young guys like brown, Tatum and possibly timelord (heck maybe even Langford is a young guy that surprises if it his hand really held him back in college)

[Moranis]

I hope but #5 is what i expect if that

Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us

I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets? :O

They barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

The Nets lost their best player (Russell, who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) and replaced him with Kyrie (who averaged 24 / 7 / 5).  They really didn't do much else at all, and while Kyrie is definitely an improvement over Russell, how many wins does he actually add?

Because looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much), and the Celtics are pretty much winning every other position. 

Personally I think the finish will be something like:

1 - Bucks
2 - Pacers
3 - Celtics
4 - Sixers
=5 - Raptors
=5 - Nets

With seeds 2 through to 4 (Pacers, Celtics, Sixers) capable of falling in any order. 

The Nets are Kyrie and a team full of role players - I can't see them beating the Bucks, Celtics, Sixers or Pacers.

Brooklyn started off the year very slowly and was sitting at 8-18.  They finished 34-22.  They had several injuries and were a very young team.  I expect Allen, LeVert, Kurucs, and Prince to continue to grow.  They are very deep and have the right mix of veterans and young players.

I think they upgraded their roster a great deal and it is a lot more than just Irving for Russell as I like Jordan, Chandler, Prince, Temple, Nwaba.

PG - Irving, Dinwiddie
SG - Harris, Temple, Nwaba
SF - LeVert, Chandler
PF - Prince, Kurucs
C - Jordan, Allen

I think that is an upper 40's win team.  Same general range as the C's, but I'd put the Nets slightly ahead as I think they have a much more balanced and a much deeper roster, which matters a great deal over the grind of the regular season.

How exactly are they much more balanced / deeper than us? They have a similar issue to us in that they have no genuine 4. They also have one of the worse defensive back-courts in the league and not great wing depth.

Also as far as them being young, they really are not that young. Harris will be 28 when season starts. Dinwiddie is 26. Levers will be 25. Not saying they are washed up, but they are probably not making a dramatic inprovement at that age. Allen is really their only true young guy at 21. I believe Robert Williams, Brown, tatum and Langford are all 22 or under.

Dude, did you even read my post.  I mean seriously, I mentioned Allen, Kurucs, LeVert, and Prince.  Then you go off on this weird tangent about players I didn't mention at all.  If you are going to respond to my posts, you need to actually respond to my posts and not just say whatever the hell you want with almost no relation to my post at all.

I thought I made a pretty respectful reasonable response. I apologize that I mentioned dinwiddie when you didn’t specifically mention him. I don’t think that really warrants this kind of response. You mentioned Harris as their starter in your previous post. I also did specifically mention levert and Allen and was pointing out that levert is not that young. My point is the same with Prince as he is going to be 26 in March. He is two weeks younger than Marcus smart and I don’t think anyone considers smart a young guy that is going to make a big jump from being a young player. I did already acknowledge that Allen is their one young potentially higher end talent in my eyes. kurucs is young too but I just don’t see him as more than bench player on a good team (you have him as the backup also) that doesn’t have the upside of our young guys like brown, Tatum and possibly timelord.

I probably overreacted some and I'm sorry about that, but I'm tired of you constantly responding to my posts about things that have nothing to do with my post.  It just wears on someone.

LeVert was in the same draft as Brown.  He is older than Brown, but has the same level of NBA experience, which I've pretty consistently argued is far more relevant to growth than someone's actual age.  I mean how else do you explain someone like Hield taking a gigantic leap forward while Irving has plateaued.  They are basically the same age, yet their growth is significantly different in the last few seasons.  Experience is far more important to growth than physical age.

Not including Durant, the Nets have 9 players that started at least 25 games last year, 7 of which started at least 46 games (LeVert 25 and Chandler 33).  Nwaba started 14 and while Dinwiddie only started 4 he played over 28 mpg.  That is what I mean when I say the Nets have a deep squad.  They have 10 players that have 3 or less years experience entering the season (including the TW contracts), but do have 6 players with at least 5 years of experience (Jordan, Chandler, Temple, Irving, Harris, Dinwiddie).  So they have the right mix of veterans and young guys, and have a lot of experience.  They won 42 games last year and improved their roster overall.  I really can't see them winning less than 45 games and would probably peg them more in the 48 or 49 range.  Boston could certainly be better than that, but Boston could also pretty easily be worse than that.  Given the grind of the season and the really young and shallow bench, I'd take the under on Boston, which is why I think Brooklyn finishes ahead of Boston in the regular season standings.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I probably overreacted some and I'm sorry about that, but I'm tired of you constantly responding to my posts about things that have nothing to do with my post.  It just wears on someone.

LeVert was in the same draft as Brown.  He is older than Brown, but has the same level of NBA experience, which I've pretty consistently argued is far more relevant to growth than someone's actual age.  I mean how else do you explain someone like Hield taking a gigantic leap forward while Irving has plateaued.  They are basically the same age, yet their growth is significantly different in the last few seasons.  Experience is far more important to growth than physical age.

Not including Durant, the Nets have 9 players that started at least 25 games last year, 7 of which started at least 46 games (LeVert 25 and Chandler 33).  Nwaba started 14 and while Dinwiddie only started 4 he played over 28 mpg.  That is what I mean when I say the Nets have a deep squad.  They have 10 players that have 3 or less years experience entering the season (including the TW contracts), but do have 6 players with at least 5 years of experience (Jordan, Chandler, Temple, Irving, Harris, Dinwiddie).  So they have the right mix of veterans and young guys, and have a lot of experience.  They won 42 games last year and improved their roster overall.  I really can't see them winning less than 45 games and would probably peg them more in the 48 or 49 range.  Boston could certainly be better than that, but Boston could also pretty easily be worse than that.  Given the grind of the season and the really young and shallow bench, I'd take the under on Boston, which is why I think Brooklyn finishes ahead of Boston in the regular season standings.

Interesting point about NBA experience. Something I'm gonna think about more.

I'm not sure Chandler, Nwaba, or Temple's experience matters that much. Chandler did very little last year and the other two were on bad teams. I also seriously think that Jordan cannot help a high level team and their defense very much. I'm not sure his experience matters a lot.

Still, the point is well-taken. The Nets did a good job this off-season. On paper, they should be better, but as we all realize, paper teams with Irving can be very different than the actual teams.

[Hoopvortex]

LeVert was in the same draft as Brown.  He is older than Brown, but has the same level of NBA experience,

On the whole, your point is a good one, and well-taken.

But Caris has had injuries that have limited his court time: he's played 168 games plus 5 playoffs versus Brown's 222 plus 44 playoffs, a more-than-a-season difference of 93 games, even if you don't value playoff experience more than regular season experience, which I think that you should.

There's another question around LeVert, inevitably: is he injury-prone? I don't have an opinion about that, and beyond that, I have my doubts that there is such a thing as "injury-prone". But he has missed a lot of time.

Experience is far more important to growth than physical age.

This is a fascinating question.

I guess I'd say that it's difficult to separate them; and that there are other factors as well, like physiology and anatomy.

Having said that, I mostly come down on the Experience side with you - it's the "Rule of 10,000 hours" thing.

I'd take the under on Boston, which is why I think Brooklyn finishes ahead of Boston in the regular season standings.

Your argument makes perfect sense to me, especially on the Boston side of things. Irving is a better player than Walker, and they have not really replaced Al Horford. Etc.

And yet, I believe that the wing trio plus Smart that is the core group for Boston's future will get the responsibility that it didn't have last year, and that they will respond with winning basketball. I've got the over on this one.

Irrational? I admit it.

[Moranis]

I probably overreacted some and I'm sorry about that, but I'm tired of you constantly responding to my posts about things that have nothing to do with my post.  It just wears on someone.

LeVert was in the same draft as Brown.  He is older than Brown, but has the same level of NBA experience, which I've pretty consistently argued is far more relevant to growth than someone's actual age.  I mean how else do you explain someone like Hield taking a gigantic leap forward while Irving has plateaued.  They are basically the same age, yet their growth is significantly different in the last few seasons.  Experience is far more important to growth than physical age.

Not including Durant, the Nets have 9 players that started at least 25 games last year, 7 of which started at least 46 games (LeVert 25 and Chandler 33).  Nwaba started 14 and while Dinwiddie only started 4 he played over 28 mpg.  That is what I mean when I say the Nets have a deep squad.  They have 10 players that have 3 or less years experience entering the season (including the TW contracts), but do have 6 players with at least 5 years of experience (Jordan, Chandler, Temple, Irving, Harris, Dinwiddie).  So they have the right mix of veterans and young guys, and have a lot of experience.  They won 42 games last year and improved their roster overall.  I really can't see them winning less than 45 games and would probably peg them more in the 48 or 49 range.  Boston could certainly be better than that, but Boston could also pretty easily be worse than that.  Given the grind of the season and the really young and shallow bench, I'd take the under on Boston, which is why I think Brooklyn finishes ahead of Boston in the regular season standings.

Interesting point about NBA experience. Something I'm gonna think about more.

I'm not sure Chandler, Nwaba, or Temple's experience matters that much. Chandler did very little last year and the other two were on bad teams. I also seriously think that Jordan cannot help a high level team and their defense very much. I'm not sure his experience matters a lot.

Still, the point is well-taken. The Nets did a good job this off-season. On paper, they should be better, but as we all realize, paper teams with Irving can be very different than the actual teams.

Jordan didn't do anything for the Knicks, but the Mavs collapsed after Jordan was traded.  His last game in Dallas was the 24 point win against the Knicks taking their record to 23-27.  he was on the roster but didn't play the next game a loss.  the Mavs then won 3 of 4 directly after the trade to sit at 26-29.  They finished 7-20 and I'd argue in a large part because they lost their safety net inside.  The ON/OFF numbers for him also show that the Mavs (and even the Knicks) were a lot better when he was on the floor then when he was off it.  The Mavs were even in the positive. 

This idea that interior players don't have value just isn't borne out in reality.  A good inside big man, still is incredibly valuable.  And while Jordan isn't as good as he once was, he is still a plus on the court.  The real concern I'd have if I'm the Nets with Jordan on the team, is that it will probably stunt Allen's growth some, and I think Allen could be a legit monster in the right situation.

[celticsclay]

I hope but #5 is what i expect if that

Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us

I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets? :O

They barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

The Nets lost their best player (Russell, who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) and replaced him with Kyrie (who averaged 24 / 7 / 5).  They really didn't do much else at all, and while Kyrie is definitely an improvement over Russell, how many wins does he actually add?

Because looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much), and the Celtics are pretty much winning every other position. 

Personally I think the finish will be something like:

1 - Bucks
2 - Pacers
3 - Celtics
4 - Sixers
=5 - Raptors
=5 - Nets

With seeds 2 through to 4 (Pacers, Celtics, Sixers) capable of falling in any order. 

The Nets are Kyrie and a team full of role players - I can't see them beating the Bucks, Celtics, Sixers or Pacers.

Brooklyn started off the year very slowly and was sitting at 8-18.  They finished 34-22.  They had several injuries and were a very young team.  I expect Allen, LeVert, Kurucs, and Prince to continue to grow.  They are very deep and have the right mix of veterans and young players.

I think they upgraded their roster a great deal and it is a lot more than just Irving for Russell as I like Jordan, Chandler, Prince, Temple, Nwaba.

PG - Irving, Dinwiddie
SG - Harris, Temple, Nwaba
SF - LeVert, Chandler
PF - Prince, Kurucs
C - Jordan, Allen

I think that is an upper 40's win team.  Same general range as the C's, but I'd put the Nets slightly ahead as I think they have a much more balanced and a much deeper roster, which matters a great deal over the grind of the regular season.

How exactly are they much more balanced / deeper than us? They have a similar issue to us in that they have no genuine 4. They also have one of the worse defensive back-courts in the league and not great wing depth.

Also as far as them being young, they really are not that young. Harris will be 28 when season starts. Dinwiddie is 26. Levers will be 25. Not saying they are washed up, but they are probably not making a dramatic inprovement at that age. Allen is really their only true young guy at 21. I believe Robert Williams, Brown, tatum and Langford are all 22 or under.

Dude, did you even read my post.  I mean seriously, I mentioned Allen, Kurucs, LeVert, and Prince.  Then you go off on this weird tangent about players I didn't mention at all.  If you are going to respond to my posts, you need to actually respond to my posts and not just say whatever the hell you want with almost no relation to my post at all.

I thought I made a pretty respectful reasonable response. I apologize that I mentioned dinwiddie when you didn’t specifically mention him. I don’t think that really warrants this kind of response. You mentioned Harris as their starter in your previous post. I also did specifically mention levert and Allen and was pointing out that levert is not that young. My point is the same with Prince as he is going to be 26 in March. He is two weeks younger than Marcus smart and I don’t think anyone considers smart a young guy that is going to make a big jump from being a young player. I did already acknowledge that Allen is their one young potentially higher end talent in my eyes. kurucs is young too but I just don’t see him as more than bench player on a good team (you have him as the backup also) that doesn’t have the upside of our young guys like brown, Tatum and possibly timelord.

I probably overreacted some and I'm sorry about that, but I'm tired of you constantly responding to my posts about things that have nothing to do with my post.  It just wears on someone.

LeVert was in the same draft as Brown.  He is older than Brown, but has the same level of NBA experience, which I've pretty consistently argued is far more relevant to growth than someone's actual age.  I mean how else do you explain someone like Hield taking a gigantic leap forward while Irving has plateaued.  They are basically the same age, yet their growth is significantly different in the last few seasons.  Experience is far more important to growth than physical age.

Not including Durant, the Nets have 9 players that started at least 25 games last year, 7 of which started at least 46 games (LeVert 25 and Chandler 33).  Nwaba started 14 and while Dinwiddie only started 4 he played over 28 mpg.  That is what I mean when I say the Nets have a deep squad.  They have 10 players that have 3 or less years experience entering the season (including the TW contracts), but do have 6 players with at least 5 years of experience (Jordan, Chandler, Temple, Irving, Harris, Dinwiddie).  So they have the right mix of veterans and young guys, and have a lot of experience.  They won 42 games last year and improved their roster overall.  I really can't see them winning less than 45 games and would probably peg them more in the 48 or 49 range.  Boston could certainly be better than that, but Boston could also pretty easily be worse than that.  Given the grind of the season and the really young and shallow bench, I'd take the under on Boston, which is why I think Brooklyn finishes ahead of Boston in the regular season standings.

I really thought my response was about the Nets age and I though didn't go through the exact same players systematically, my point is, from a chronological perspective they really are not a very young team. Their only guy that is under 23 that probably projects as a starter long term is Allen. Even him I am now worried is going to have his growth stunted by the Nets bringing in Durant and Irving's friend to be the starter in Jordan.

However, I think it is a bit fair to look at the Nets and get confused and think they have been younger they were this year and last year cause they have had a couple of guys like Levert and Dinwiddie that came into the league a year or two older than their classmates (Dinwiddie has played 5 seasons and is turning 27 next season). Prince also fits in this mold, it is actually a bit crazy he is going to turn 26 in his 4th season. That is pretty unusual. They actually lost one of their youngest players with a lot of upside in russell who is still only 23 (and obviously made a big leap last seasons.

I guess it is possible that some of these guys improve more than a fellow 25 or 26 year old, but I personally don't really agree with this way of thinking. I don't think NBA evaluators really agree with this way of thinking either as prospects constantly fall in the draft if they are a bit older and rise up if they are younger. I think a player like Hield is really the exception rather than the rule. There are also physical changes like adding muscle mass that a player can physiologically do a lot easier at 21-23 than 24-26 due to higher hormone levels and other small physiological differences.

[Moranis]

LeVert was in the same draft as Brown.  He is older than Brown, but has the same level of NBA experience,

On the whole, your point is a good one, and well-taken.

But Caris has had injuries that have limited his court time: he's played 168 games plus 5 playoffs versus Brown's 222 plus 44 playoffs, a more-than-a-season difference of 93 games, even if you don't value playoff experience more than regular season experience, which I think that you should.

There's another question around LeVert, inevitably: is he injury-prone? I don't have an opinion about that, and beyond that, I have my doubts that there is such a thing as "injury-prone". But he has missed a lot of time.

Experience is far more important to growth than physical age.

This is a fascinating question.

I guess I'd say that it's difficult to separate them; and that there are other factors as well, like physiology and anatomy.

Having said that, I mostly come down on the Experience side with you - it's the "Rule of 10,000 hours" thing.

I'd take the under on Boston, which is why I think Brooklyn finishes ahead of Boston in the regular season standings.

Your argument makes perfect sense to me, especially on the Boston side of things. Irving is a better player than Walker, and they have not really replaced Al Horford. Etc.

And yet, I believe that the wing trio plus Smart that is the core group for Boston's future will get the responsibility that it didn't have last year, and that they will respond with winning basketball. I've got the over on this one.

Irrational? I admit it.

No question LeVert is a gigantic injury question mark, but the injuries also work against the argument that he isn't going to get better.  If he stays healthy, then the fact that he has played so little actually makes him more likely to take a big leap because quite simply you get better at something the more you do it (until you top out of course).  Someone like Brown that has had consistent playing time may take a leap, but he also may not, given just how much playing time he has already had.  And the reality is, players that have generally found consistent playing time for 3 years, don't often take a leap between year 3 and year 4 especially when that player hasn't been making big leaps all along.  I have real concerns that Brown is basically who he is.  He will obviously improve, but I'm not so sure he is going to massively improve either and turn into the player we all hope he can become and frankly need him to become.