2009 Celticsblog Draft: Voting Analysis : Team of the Future

[Roy Hobbs]

Wouldn't it give more credence to your belief and give other voters and GMs the idea that you actually believe what you are saying in defense of your own players if you actually defended another team the very same way you defend your team against those accusations rather than pointing them out?

I did do that above, nick:

Right, and after that, all any of us can do is hope for the best.  It's impossible to predict whether Big Al will be healthy -- his track record isn't great -- but in all honesty, that's not going to be a deciding factor for me.  Yes, injuries may play into my analysis a bit, but it won't be a major one.

(And the same thing is true with Chicago, although injuries become a bit more relevant, since the bench is weak, at least in its current state.)

In other words, I don't see anything hypocritical in my stance.  Injuries should be factored in to some extent, but to me, it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.  Obviously, I think deep teams with injured players can absorb them better than more shallow teams, just because 1) there's nobody to fill a void if a player goes down, and 2) playing heavier minutes makes injuries more likely.

The only reason I brought up the status of Chicago's players was because his stance was "we're young and healthy, unlike other teams".  That simply wasn't true.

[johnnyrondo]

Wouldn't it give more credence to your belief and give other voters and GMs the idea that you actually believe what you are saying in defense of your own players if you actually defended another team the very same way you defend your team against those accusations rather than pointing them out?

I did do that above, nick:

Right, and after that, all any of us can do is hope for the best.  It's impossible to predict whether Big Al will be healthy -- his track record isn't great -- but in all honesty, that's not going to be a deciding factor for me.  Yes, injuries may play into my analysis a bit, but it won't be a major one.

(And the same thing is true with Chicago, although injuries become a bit more relevant, since the bench is weak, at least in its current state.)

In other words, I don't see anything hypocritical in my stance.  Injuries should be factored in to some extent, but to me, it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.  Obviously, I think deep teams with injured players can absorb them better than more shallow teams, just because 1) there's nobody to fill a void if a player goes down, and 2) playing heavier minutes makes injuries more likely.

The only reason I brought up the status of Chicago's players was because his stance was "we're young and healthy, unlike other teams".  That simply wasn't true.

Chris Paul is healthy. horford is healthy. Gasol is healthy. Raja is healthy. Anderson and Armstrong are healthy. All our guys are healthy. Only guy who you could mention at all seemed pretty healthy when he returned. i think MArtin scored 50 in April, probably against the Kings wishes as they were tanking. My team versus your team is no where in the same universe concerning health risks.

You copied and pasted my roster from the roster thread and just tried to attack my team. We never mention Portland, b/c they are not a threat. we do have to it seems now frequently correct Portland's misinformation campaign on the Bulls.

Kind of like their starting lineup. Portland has no defense, so they must continue to try and always be on attack mode of others.

[Roy Hobbs]

Past their prime...I think that is the key criticism to Roy's team, not so much injury. I think Shaq had his late in his career bounce back season last year. Countless number of greats in all types of sports have them. I think last year was Shaq's and he is going to return to the steady 5 year decline in production and play that we saw before last season.

I don't think Shaq has declined nearly as far as you think he has.  He's shot above 58% every season the past five years.  He's not the dominant, Top-10 Center of All-time that he once was, but he's still one of the strongest and most physical dominant centers in the NBA.  His numbers last season were basically the same they were two years ago.

I think Bibby is similar though I think he isn't nearly as far along in his decline from his prime as Shaq is.

Bibby, too, had a very good year last year.  He had his highest shooting percentage since 2005.  I don't see that as decline.  He's an extraordinarily efficient point guard.

I'm not going to say that decline isn't possible, but I don't really think it's likely.

[Roy Hobbs]

. . .  horford is healthy. Gasol is healthy. Raja is healthy.

I pasted the number of games missed by these guys above.  They're no more healthy than Shaq, Jermaine O'Neal, or any number of other players on my team you've mentioned.

To use nick's words, it seems hypocritical to constantly point out Portland's health, and ignore your own team's concerns.  As noted:

Martin missed 31 games last season, and 21 games the season before that.  Since 2005, Pau Gasol (age 29 next season) has had seasons where he has missed 26, 23, and 16 games.  Al Horford missed 15 games last season.  Raja Bell is 33 years old, and missed 15 games last year.

For comparison's sake, Shaq missed 7 games, and Jermaine O'Neal missed 12 (including 2 he sat out to rest for the playoffs).  I don't see how you say, "Injuries are a big deal for Portland, but not for me".  You can't have it both ways.  Either they matter, or they don't.

I've taken the stance that they matter somewhat, but they're not the be all and end all of analysis.  You, on the other hand, have decided "they only matter when other teams have injuries".

[johnnyrondo]

We're going by now. Martin put in 50 in April. Obviously a team from 2003 wants to go by the past. Like you said. you enjoy putting out misinformation and trying to confuse others.

Portland is obsessed with the Bulls. It's borderline hilarious.

[Roy Hobbs]

We're going by now. Martin put in 50 in April. Obviously a team from 2003 wants to go by the past. Like you said. you enjoy putting out misinformation and trying to confuse others.

Portland is obsessed with the Bulls. It's borderline hilarious.

Sorry for responding to the silly "we're healthy" statements you've made.  I guess I should have ignored your faulty logic, regarding how a team that has had 80% of its starting lineup have fairly significant injuries in recent years is completely "healthy".

You had a great team, and have reduced it to a fundamentally flawed squad based around three stars, two of whom have had major injury issues on multiple occasions in their careers.  If you're going to suggest that other teams can't overcome alleged injury issues, I'm not sure how only your team magically can.  Presumably, it's because it's *your* squad.

[nickagneta]

Wouldn't it give more credence to your belief and give other voters and GMs the idea that you actually believe what you are saying in defense of your own players if you actually defended another team the very same way you defend your team against those accusations rather than pointing them out?

I did do that above, nick:

Right, and after that, all any of us can do is hope for the best.  It's impossible to predict whether Big Al will be healthy -- his track record isn't great -- but in all honesty, that's not going to be a deciding factor for me.  Yes, injuries may play into my analysis a bit, but it won't be a major one.

(And the same thing is true with Chicago, although injuries become a bit more relevant, since the bench is weak, at least in its current state.)

In other words, I don't see anything hypocritical in my stance.  Injuries should be factored in to some extent, but to me, it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.  Obviously, I think deep teams with injured players can absorb them better than more shallow teams, just because 1) there's nobody to fill a void if a player goes down, and 2) playing heavier minutes makes injuries more likely.

The only reason I brought up the status of Chicago's players was because his stance was "we're young and healthy, unlike other teams".  That simply wasn't true.

You are absolutely right about a deep team being able to absorb injuries better. If there's anyone who can understand that it's Celtics fans after last year.

PS. I think I was typing  my posted critique of your pointing out the injuries when you posted that and went to the bathroom and then continued my post so I had a couple of posts that were posted while I was reading and never got around to reading them until after. Sorry dude.

As an aside I think since you and Edgar hype your team so much people are going to get sick of reading all the self love and do anything they can to attack your team. If the general CB public is going to be voting for team of the year, would your hype be better served in a thread on it's own that people will read or one post per thread that is off topic doing nothing but advertising for votes for your great team?

I mean the hype was funny and fun the first 150 pages or so but having to go through 3-4 Portland CrotoNats lovefest posts per page in the draft thread is getting a bit much and I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way.

[johnnyrondo]

We're going by now. Martin put in 50 in April. Obviously a team from 2003 wants to go by the past. Like you said. you enjoy putting out misinformation and trying to confuse others.

Portland is obsessed with the Bulls. It's borderline hilarious.

Sorry for responding to the silly "we're healthy" statements you've made.  I guess I should have ignored your faulty logic, regarding how a team that has had 80% of its starting lineup have fairly significant injuries in recent years is completely "healthy".

You had a great team, and have reduced it to a fundamentally flawed squad based around three stars, two of whom have had major injury issues on multiple occasions in their careers.  If you're going to suggest that other teams can't overcome alleged injury issues, I'm not sure how only your team magically can.  Presumably, it's because it's *your* squad.

I'll take Kevin Martin over Prince any day. Since you thought we had a "great team" we've exchanged Prince for Martin and added Anderson, Armstrong, williams, etc. If you think that Prince is better than Martin, when you praised Martin as a first rounder and didn't even think that Prince was the steal of the 4th round, than that's hilarious.

I realize that the only way you can convince rationale minded people that Portland is a contender without a star is to slander other teams (like when you left out the Gomes and dudley part) You call it providing misinformation. I see it as a desperate attempt to be relevant.

Horford, Gasol, Raja, and Chris Paul? No one would say they are oft injured players or old no defense playing players. Martin has an injury, recovered and put in 50.

[Roy Hobbs]

As an aside I think since you and Edgar hype your team so much people are going to get sick of reading all the self love and do anything they can to attack your team. If the general CB public is going to be voting for team of the year, would your hype be better served in a thread on it's own that people will read or one post per thread that is off topic doing nothing but advertising for votes for your great team?

I mean the hype was funny and fun the first 150 pages or so but having to go through 3-4 Portland CrotoNats lovefest posts per page in the draft thread is getting a bit much and I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way.

The "hype" is all in jest, and comes mostly from my co-GM.  I think it's generally teasing.

However, when I defend our team, I think that's absolutely acceptable.  I like what we've put together.  I think it's a strong contender in the West, and in the NBA overall.  When people challenge the team, of course I'm going to defend it.

[johnnyrondo]

Prediction:

Based on Portland's depth, they will still make the playoffs if only one of their sudo stars get injured.


Prediction: Just like the real C's with KG or the Cavs with Lebron or the magic with Howard or the Hornets with CP3... if CP3 gets injured the Bulls will not win the championship.    Shocking I know.

[johnnyrondo]

As an aside I think since you and Edgar hype your team so much people are going to get sick of reading all the self love and do anything they can to attack your team. If the general CB public is going to be voting for team of the year, would your hype be better served in a thread on it's own that people will read or one post per thread that is off topic doing nothing but advertising for votes for your great team?

I mean the hype was funny and fun the first 150 pages or so but having to go through 3-4 Portland CrotoNats lovefest posts per page in the draft thread is getting a bit much and I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way.

The "hype" is all in jest, and comes mostly from my co-GM.  I think it's generally teasing.

However, when I defend our team, I think that's absolutely acceptable.  I like what we've put together.  I think it's a strong contender in the West, and in the NBA overall.  When people challenge the team, of course I'm going to defend it.

You mean you search out other teams to attack and then when they point out your team's glaring flaws, you defend it.

Portland is definitely the hype capitol and the league's instigators. Used to be Toronto, but he realized he was turning everyone off.

[johnnyrondo]

Portland's dream: 2010 NBA Finals

CrotoNats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IUrKFAJzuA


Bulls

[nickagneta]

As an aside I think since you and Edgar hype your team so much people are going to get sick of reading all the self love and do anything they can to attack your team. If the general CB public is going to be voting for team of the year, would your hype be better served in a thread on it's own that people will read or one post per thread that is off topic doing nothing but advertising for votes for your great team?

I mean the hype was funny and fun the first 150 pages or so but having to go through 3-4 Portland CrotoNats lovefest posts per page in the draft thread is getting a bit much and I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way.

The "hype" is all in jest, and comes mostly from my co-GM.  I think it's generally teasing.

However, when I defend our team, I think that's absolutely acceptable.  I like what we've put together.  I think it's a strong contender in the West, and in the NBA overall.  When people challenge the team, of course I'm going to defend it.

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about defending yourselves. I wouldn't  respect you if you didn't defend your team.

But.....if there wasn't so so so so so much hype/teasing/having fun my guess is you would not have to be defending yourselves so much.

[johnnyrondo]

So there are a ton of teams that made moves. If we could update the roster thread, I'd like to review the teams. I think there are some contenders out there that are not getting their do. I'm curious to see how the Sonics and Rockets look. Or how Boston looks. I think HDM has surrounded Duncan with pieces to compete and I like a lot of WW's second week picks to compliment stars Bosh and JJ. I know Boston made a move for Prince, and since they have Wade they could also be very good. At the very least, Boston is up there with the Knicks in the Atlantic.

I think it will come down to which team surrounded their superstar with the best 2nd guy, 3rd guy, etc. The only team with a superstar I'm not fond of is the Hornets (whatever team has Kobe).

[Roy Hobbs]

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about defending yourselves. I wouldn't  respect you if you didn't defend your team.

But.....if there wasn't so so so so so much hype/teasing/having fun my guess is you would not have to be defending yourselves so much.

True, I agree.  However, I don't mind defending our team.  As I said, the hype is all in jest.  The scrolling text, etc., has become a draft tradition.

In the end, we don't get defensive about our team.  We know its potential weaknesses, and we don't hide from them.  However, we're also not going to downplay our strengths, either.