ESPN "Expert" Predictions (C's vs Cavs)

[Hoops]

Guys: in the series two years ago, Ray Allen played as many minutes as anyone and was 4-24 from three and averaged 9.3 points a game! And you know what? He played next to a guy who couldn't shoot at all either. And we still won!

If Ray plays(SHOOTS) well and Rondo penetrates and goes to the line and makes his shots(80 of 110 from the line over several weeks) those will be contributions that will make up any degredation between this team and that Celtic championship team. TA, and Baby off the bench should be decent contributors and Sheed has to suplly a PJ like series. We can do this!

I agree with this. Ray should have been a huge advantage last time around, but he wasn't, and - as you note - we still won. This time around Rondo is much better and Ray ought to play much better as well. Rondo/Allen should absolutely destroy Williams/Parker. Doesn't mean we'll win the series, but if we win the guard match-ups, we should have a very good shot at this thing.

[Eddie20]

I always seem to mess up when I post photos on this site, but here is one from 2008 you guys might like.

TP for the Finals prediction link.

I find it hilarious that the same Abbot, who is predicting a Cavs sweep, predicted Lakers in 5 when we won #17. If his "expertise" would have been correct it means that we would've gone 1-8 combined vs the Lakers and Cavs. Since when did we become the Nets?

[FallGuy]

What qualifies these people as experts?

They spend their entire weeks focused on basketball, studying and breaking it down, in a lot of cases and talking with players, coaches, scouts, front office people, etc. about the game. They've also put in many years as, e.g. beat reporters or players.

No word on their message board use.

[RebusRankin]

What qualifies these people as experts?

Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.

Most of them are journalists. Journalists are basically fans who get paid to watch games. Don't think they are experts any more than the people on this blog. Former players are different.

[FallGuy]

What qualifies these people as experts?

Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.

TP

That was funny.

To be fair, no matter how much time you spend around a game, exact predictions are a craps shoot. Even if it is clear which team is better, that doesn't mean they will win. Also, some of the "Experts" are actually more expert at writing or broadcasting than at evaluating the actual sport.

Of course, I would listen to ESPN experts before I would listen to fans of particular teams, including myself.

You're right about the crap shoot nature of predictions. We all look like idiots with the Hawks-Bucks series. What's silly is questioning someone as an expert because they get a prediction wrong. Expert doesn't mean infallible. Some people don't realize that.

[FallGuy]

What qualifies these people as experts?

Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.

Most of them are journalists. Journalists are basically fans who get paid to watch games. Don't think they are experts any more than the people on this blog. Former players are different.

You're wrong about the journalists thing. The job of a journalist, particularly one who focuses tightly on something like the NBA, is to develop a deeper and broader base of knowledge and understanding (therefore "expert"). This should not upset people. I mean - sure, Charles Barkley puts in no effort but we don't really watch Charles for his expertise. And Simmons clearly knows the game but his heart makes him say things that seem silly sometime.

But guys like, to pick at random, Kevin Arnovitz or writers like, Jackie MacMullan - they know waaaay more than the average poster on this message board. Again - not an insult.

[More Banners]

What qualifies these people as experts?

Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.

Most of them are journalists. Journalists are basically fans who get paid to watch games. Don't think they are experts any more than the people on this blog. Former players are different.

You're wrong about the journalists thing. The job of a journalist, particularly one who focuses tightly on something like the NBA, is to develop a deeper and broader base of knowledge and understanding (therefore "expert"). This should not upset people. I mean - sure, Charles Barkley puts in no effort but we don't really watch Charles for his expertise. And Simmons clearly knows the game but his heart makes him say things that seem silly sometime.

But guys like, to pick at random, Kevin Arnovitz or writers like, Jackie MacMullan - they know waaaay more than the average poster on this message board. Again - not an insult.

I think the pro's benefit from a broader knowledge of the league, but, without question, there are quite a few posters here who know the Celtics much better than the pro's do, and understand the game just as well.  Consequently, I value the insights of many posters on this blog more than the pro experts.

I'd guess that most of the experts would view the center position as a large advantage to the Cavs, when those who have "scouted" the Celtics as well as we have might see that as more of a wash, for example.  Rondo/TA can keep Mo Williams' scoring in check, but most national writers probably don't know that.  Jamison seems like a major addition for the Cavs, and he is, but against KG, Jamison is no quicker while giving up a height advantage to KG.  But the national people don't watch as closely, and consequently don't respect what the C's really can do.

[RebusRankin]

What qualifies these people as experts?

Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.

Most of them are journalists. Journalists are basically fans who get paid to watch games. Don't think they are experts any more than the people on this blog. Former players are different.

You're wrong about the journalists thing. The job of a journalist, particularly one who focuses tightly on something like the NBA, is to develop a deeper and broader base of knowledge and understanding (therefore "expert"). This should not upset people. I mean - sure, Charles Barkley puts in no effort but we don't really watch Charles for his expertise. And Simmons clearly knows the game but his heart makes him say things that seem silly sometime.

But guys like, to pick at random, Kevin Arnovitz or writers like, Jackie MacMullan - they know waaaay more than the average poster on this message board. Again - not an insult.

None taken. I should have written what I said differently. Many of those who write for ESPN or the mainstream media lack knowledge or insight. The really good ones know way more than the average message board poster.

[FallGuy]

What qualifies these people as experts?

Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.

Most of them are journalists. Journalists are basically fans who get paid to watch games. Don't think they are experts any more than the people on this blog. Former players are different.

You're wrong about the journalists thing. The job of a journalist, particularly one who focuses tightly on something like the NBA, is to develop a deeper and broader base of knowledge and understanding (therefore "expert"). This should not upset people. I mean - sure, Charles Barkley puts in no effort but we don't really watch Charles for his expertise. And Simmons clearly knows the game but his heart makes him say things that seem silly sometime.

But guys like, to pick at random, Kevin Arnovitz or writers like, Jackie MacMullan - they know waaaay more than the average poster on this message board. Again - not an insult.

None taken. I should have written what I said differently. Many of those who write for ESPN or the mainstream media lack knowledge or insight. The really good ones know way more than the average message board poster.

I think there's some truth in what you're saying about some of the national media guys. Although I think the espn.com writing crew are very strong. Hollinger, Stein, Arnovitz, Abbott, Adande, Chris Forsberg (from espnboston) - these are all really sharp guys.

Which is why I'm still surprised Abbott picked Cle in 4.

[Redz]

Sportscenter's post game analysis:

Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Cavs, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron,

[twinbree]

Someone needs to stamp epic fail all across Abbot's face.

[Roy Hobbs]

Sportscenter's post game analysis:

Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Cavs, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron,

It's majorly peeving me off.  Where's the coverage about how the Celtics defense dominated?

[Fafnir]

Sportscenter's post game analysis:

Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Cavs, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron,

It's majorly peeving me off.  Where's the coverage about how the Celtics defense dominated?

The half time coverage p---ed me off to.

All LeBron and barely a mention of the C's, despite our 2 point lead.

[RebusRankin]

Simmons picked the Cavs tonight too.

I say let the experts ignore us. Makes it sweeter.

[Redz]

"We almost forgot there is a winning team too.  The Celtics will be returning to the Conference Finals.  But first let's check out the scene in Cleveland with George Smith."