The Season Hasn't Even Started And "Experts" Are Dismissing The C's

[Steve Weinman]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=NBAChamps-080911


Just what is wrong with these people? Who in their right mind would pick the Lakers? I have New Orleans making it out of the west as it is, so the idea of LA even winning the west seems strange to me.

ERA, perhaps this has something to do with the fact that nuances of tone can often be lost in print, but your opening strikes me as a bit odd.  Because you aren't predicting a Western Conference title for the Lakers, it's ridiculous that somebody else is?

We're not exactly talking about an out-of-leftfield pick here, either.  This is a team that won 57 regular season games and a conference title a season ago.  It's a team with one of the league's three or four best players (that's a conservative guess at his ability), one All-Star big men, one of the game's all-time best coaches and will be getting back one of the most promising big man talents in the game this season.  This is also a team that took the champions to six games this past June.  Yet you're intimating that it's ridiculously preposterous that some folks might think they'll win either a conference title or the NBA championship this season?

I'm not suggesting that the Lakers will win or that we should be picking them to do so.  But in sports prognostication, a field based on very little actual knowledge and quite a bit of speculation and guesswork, it strikes me as rather silly to denigrate the picks of others simply because of the fact that they don't match up with yours.  In the case of a relatively educated selection (the guy didn't exactly pick the Thunder to come out of the West), and in a field where, again, no one shoots 100 percent, this seems like as reasonably credible a pick as any to me. Perhaps I'm nitpicking here and getting overly obsessed with semantics - and I apologize if I am - but while disagreeing is understandable to me, the "What is wrong with these people?" rhetoric seems a bit strong in my book.

-sw

[cdif911]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=NBAChamps-080911


Just what is wrong with these people? Who in their right mind would pick the Lakers? I have New Orleans making it out of the west as it is, so the idea of LA even winning the west seems strange to me.

ERA, perhaps this has something to do with the fact that nuances of tone can often be lost in print, but your opening strikes me as a bit odd.  Because you aren't predicting a Western Conference title for the Lakers, it's ridiculous that somebody else is?

We're not exactly talking about an out-of-leftfield pick here, either.  This is a team that won 57 regular season games and a conference title a season ago.  It's a team with one of the league's three or four best players (that's a conservative guess at his ability), one All-Star big men, one of the game's all-time best coaches and will be getting back one of the most promising big man talents in the game this season.  This is also a team that took the champions to six games this past June.  Yet you're intimating that it's ridiculously preposterous that some folks might think they'll win either a conference title or the NBA championship this season?

I'm not suggesting that the Lakers will win or that we should be picking them to do so.  But in sports prognostication, a field based on very little actual knowledge and quite a bit of speculation and guesswork, it strikes me as rather silly to denigrate the picks of others simply because of the fact that they don't match up with yours.  In the case of a relatively educated selection (the guy didn't exactly pick the Thunder to come out of the West), and in a field where, again, no one shoots 100 percent, this seems like as reasonably credible a pick as any to me. Perhaps I'm nitpicking here and getting overly obsessed with semantics - and I apologize if I am - but while disagreeing is understandable to me, the "What is wrong with these people?" rhetoric seems a bit strong in my book.

-sw

ooh steve, I like it when you get angry...I've never seen this side of you =)

[D Dub]

How anyone puts any stock in the ESPN picks is beyond me. 


Could they have been more wrong with their Finals predictions?  This after viewing a full regular season and 3 playoff series from each team, and they still weren't even close!

The only one of those guys who is remotely grounded is Tim Legler.


Much much better info from community here at Celtsblog 

[billysan]

It's all because of the Andrew Bynum factor. But what many experts dont know is that Bynum sucked against the Celtics!

Whether they know that or not is up for debate.  What they likely *do* know, however, is the meaning of the concept of 'sample size.'  Bynum played a total of 49 minutes in two regular season games against the Celtics last season - and a total of 105 minutes in five games against them for his career.  Label me a bit short of ready to say that the guy can't play against the green.

-sw

Let us not forget that Perk matched up very well against Bynum none the less. Bynum attempts a physicality in his inside Game that Perk excells at IMO. That being said, Bynum was younger and somewhat less experienced than Perk when they met in the regular season games last year. He will be certainly improved this year. They also had Gasol playing center and he is clearly a PF, now being matched up with KG instead. Odom will be matched up with Pierce and Ray will have Kobe. Start Radmanovich again? I think not. I look forward to the matchups this year.

The Rockets will be interesting if Yao can stay healthy. The addition of Artest will make them much better as well. NO is definitely a favorite along with the Lakers as well. I also believe Utah is underrated. They are fully capable of winning the West against anyone this season and may be motivated as this could be their last shot at the finals with Boozer, Okhur and Williams in new contract mode.

I dont see how the Spurs will do much beyond making the playoffs next season. Too many questions. Will Ginobili be healthy? Can Michael Finley and Kurt Thomas still play? Will Parker be effective? Horry and Barry no longer on board, who shoots off the bench? Who did they add that will make a difference, Roger Mason? Duncan is still a force but this supporting cast is looking weaker and weaker.

As to ESPN bias, how many years have we heard this? The writers are mostly Laker and Knicks fans or guys who are certified Lebron lovers. None of those folks would likely pick the Celtics for much of anything anyway.

[guava_wrench]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=NBAChamps-080911


Just what is wrong with these people? Who in their right mind would pick the Lakers? I have New Orleans making it out of the west as it is, so the idea of LA even winning the west seems strange to me.
...
What is the deal here? Its like the writers at ESPN have already forgotten that they ALL predicted Lakers in 4,5, or 6, and were proved shamefully wrong. Its a month and a half before the season starts, and they've already hopped back on the media-capital bandwagon.

Why does that seem strange? The Lakers won the west last year with Bynum out and Gasol for only part of the season. Why are you so surprised that people think they would be a favorite? Are you worried about Derek Fisher getting older?

[PerkinsERA43]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=NBAChamps-080911


Just what is wrong with these people? Who in their right mind would pick the Lakers? I have New Orleans making it out of the west as it is, so the idea of LA even winning the west seems strange to me.
...
What is the deal here? Its like the writers at ESPN have already forgotten that they ALL predicted Lakers in 4,5, or 6, and were proved shamefully wrong. Its a month and a half before the season starts, and they've already hopped back on the media-capital bandwagon.

Why does that seem strange? The Lakers won the west last year with Bynum out and Gasol for only part of the season. Why are you so surprised that people think they would be a favorite? Are you worried about Derek Fisher getting older?

In response to Steve: I'm not saying someone's predictions are ridiculous simply because they don't match up with mine. That would be pretty baseless, I agree. I have a sleuth of reasons as to why I don't think the Lakers will win. I just didn't write anything about that because I was short for time.

In response to Guava: I think the quality of the west has jumped significantly, even from the high plateau it was on last year. NO is better. SA, when healthy, will be a big factor. Houston could potentially shake up seeding, although I don't think they will contend for the 'ship. The Lakers have gained nothing this offseason except for a year of age and, from what I've watched, a very overhyped center. Someone on this thread called him a top 10 center. Unfortunately, the fact is that almost every center is of about the same level of ability. If I may, I will make a video game analogy in saying that pretty much every starting center is between 65-75 overall. Maybe Bynum is a 76, and maybe that's enough to make him top 10, but it doesn't make him an inside force. Perk can take anything Bynum dishes out. I'm guessing Perk averages 9 and 10 next year. Maybe Bynum will average 13 and 9. That's not anything to make me flinch.

The Lakers also lost Turiaf from their "bench mob" (and by the way, the hype their bench gets and the praise they give to a bunch of 3 point shooting matadors makes me sick). Turiaf was the only guy on that bench who played a shred of D, or rebounded the ball. The Lakers will get murdered on the glass by the likes of Tyson Chandler, Yao Ming, Tim Duncan, and if they somehow make it to the finals, they will be murdered by Perk, KG, Rondo, Varejao, Ilgauskaus, Lebron, or Jason Maxiell on the glass.

You know, perhaps the Lakers will get the first seed, but I don't see them getting past the Conf. finals. They are honestly so bad at defense that several times during the finals I actually laughed at them (i.e. when Ray Allen basically sauntered around Vujacic on his way to a game-deciding layup). With the slower pace of the playoffs and the more physical, defensively oriented style, the Lakers tremendous offensive talent will eventually be swallowed up by their horrific 'D' once they play a team that can actually stay with them.

I THINK that's about all of my reasoning, but I might be forgetting some things. Either way... that's what I'm worried about with the Lakers.

[TitleMaster]

I don't get it with Bynum? He's shown less pizazz than Big Al (granted, only C's fans cared about him back then) and he's already at par with a Stoudamire-like big man? What's the matter with these prognosticators. The guy needs 20 non-injury games to prove that he's a post player and against other post players, not Raef LaFrentz ones.

At this point in time, Odom's more battle proven than him and no one's going ga-ga over him. Here's what I think, Odom, Bynum, and Gasol as a big man rotation will be highly effective, taking into account various mismatches, but not dominant unless Odom's having a major breakout. For some reason, I have less faith in Bynum than in Odom. A Perkins/AJ/Powe rotation, however, would be dominant (given Powe, with a 2nd year under the belt) and since KG is an upgrade over AJ (sorry Al), Perks-KG-Powe would be a dominant big man rotation.


And don't forget, Pierce is also a part of the front line so we lose nothing on the rebounding angle at the SF spot.
Again, it points to another underrating of Paul Pierce's capabilities as if Bynum will nullify the Celts frontline since there's *only KG* up front? Hmm... brings back an old stereotype of Pierce only being a scorer and not contributing to the post game.

[Raygus]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=NBAChamps-080911


Just what is wrong with these people? Who in their right mind would pick the Lakers? I have New Orleans making it out of the west as it is, so the idea of LA even winning the west seems strange to me.

Yet you're intimating that it's ridiculously preposterous that some folks might think they'll win either a conference title or the NBA championship this season?

if you stopped using, or at least stopped misspelling double superlatives, i'd enjoy your writing a lot more.

forgive me if i'm nitpicking.

[Steve Weinman]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=NBAChamps-080911


Just what is wrong with these people? Who in their right mind would pick the Lakers? I have New Orleans making it out of the west as it is, so the idea of LA even winning the west seems strange to me.
...
What is the deal here? Its like the writers at ESPN have already forgotten that they ALL predicted Lakers in 4,5, or 6, and were proved shamefully wrong. Its a month and a half before the season starts, and they've already hopped back on the media-capital bandwagon.

Why does that seem strange? The Lakers won the west last year with Bynum out and Gasol for only part of the season. Why are you so surprised that people think they would be a favorite? Are you worried about Derek Fisher getting older?

In response to Steve: I'm not saying someone's predictions are ridiculous simply because they don't match up with mine. That would be pretty baseless, I agree. I have a sleuth of reasons as to why I don't think the Lakers will win. I just didn't write anything about that because I was short for time.

Thanks for clarifying, ERA.  While I'm sorry to disappoint cdif  , I wasn't angry - just a bit confused by the way I read your 'tone' there, which I know is always a murky venture in print.

-sw

[Steve Weinman]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=NBAChamps-080911


Just what is wrong with these people? Who in their right mind would pick the Lakers? I have New Orleans making it out of the west as it is, so the idea of LA even winning the west seems strange to me.

Yet you're intimating that it's ridiculously preposterous that some folks might think they'll win either a conference title or the NBA championship this season?

if you stopped using, or at least stopped misspelling double superlatives, i'd enjoy your writing a lot more.

forgive me if i'm nitpicking.

I could be a bit better about the use of double superlatives, that's for sure -- but I'm not sure which of those two words I misspelled...though I won't deny that I could be a bit more careful about my proofing.

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

-sw

[houlana]

i was actually surprised by the low number of votes the celts got. i was expecting the lakers to get votes too, but not that many.

u guys are right, cant put a lot on ESPN so called experts. we saw how wrong they were in the finals. most of them even pickd the jets to beat the pats. LOL

[Roy Hobbs]

Yet you're intimating that it's ridiculously preposterous that some folks might think they'll win either a conference title or the NBA championship this season?

if you stopped using, or at least stopped misspelling double superlatives, i'd enjoy your writing a lot more.

forgive me if i'm nitpicking.

I could be a bit better about the use of double superlatives, that's for sure -- but I'm not sure which of those two words I misspelled...though I won't deny that I could be a bit more careful about my proofing.

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

-sw

Hmm...  is that even a double superlative?  I don't think so, frankly.  A double superlative is something like "most fastest", which is both redundant and grammatically nonsensical.  "Ridiculously preposterous" is proper grammatically,  because "ridiculously" properly modifies the degree of preposterousness.  Not everything that is preposterous is ridiculously so.

Now, for our next lesson, we'll discussion the capitalization of the pronoun "I", followed by a lecture regarding capitalizing the initial word in a sentence. 

[ACF]

Andrew Bynum averaged 6.0 pts and
5.5 rebs in 24.5 minutes against
the Celtics last season, before
going down with the injury.
Boston won the two regular season
meetings by 13 (107-94, home) and
19 (110-91, away) points.
Thus, I see no need to fear the
Lakers, with or without Bynum.

Like I've said before, only Tim
Legler had the C's as winners of
last season's Finals.
I don't give a hoot about what
so-called experts say. Sure, it's
always fun to guess certain outcomes.
But it's always so much easier to
do it on paper...

[Sweet17]

The experts are of course often wrong. I don't know who is worse - stock experts or sport experts. That being said if I had to pick someone besides the C's it would be the Lakers. They are stacked talent wise and by the numbers were CLEARLY the second best team in the NBA last year.

They had the second highest point differential. They had the third best offense and the fifth best defense if you factor pace into it. While I greatly dislike some individual statistics to prove a players worth. Team statistics like PP100 shots are irrefutable for the most part.

Pete

[BballTim]

The experts are of course often wrong. I don't know who is worse - stock experts or sport experts. That being said if I had to pick someone besides the C's it would be the Lakers. They are stacked talent wise and by the numbers were CLEARLY the second best team in the NBA last year.

They had the second highest point differential. They had the third best offense and the fifth best defense if you factor pace into it. While I greatly dislike some individual statistics to prove a players worth. Team statistics like PP100 shots are irrefutable for the most part.

Pete

  The pistons were better. They won more games and had a better offensive/defensive efficiency differential (2nd in the league).