Yesterday's NBA power ranking has Celtics sixth

[Donoghus]

If you want real rankings that the ranker must "put his money where his mouth is" by then you need to see a Sportsbook's rankings.  Sportsbook.ag:

1.  MIA
2.  OKC
3.  LAL
4.  SAS
5a.  CHI
5b.  IND
7a.  BOS
7b.  LAC

I'll trust a sportsbook's rankings over some author trying to be bold/website trying to get hits any day.

Do they know something about Chicago that the rest of us, don't? 

[AB_Celtic]

If you want real rankings that the ranker must "put his money where his mouth is" by then you need to see a Sportsbook's rankings.  Sportsbook.ag:

1.  MIA
2.  OKC
3.  LAL
4.  SAS
5a.  CHI
5b.  IND
7a.  BOS
7b.  LAC

I'll trust a sportsbook's rankings over some author trying to be bold/website trying to get hits any day.

Do they know something about Chicago that the rest of us, don't? 

I was thinking the same. CHI is essentially tanking

[CelticG1]

Who did the clips get? I know they lost kenton martin, evans, and Nick young. Can't remember who they picked up. I guess a 35 year old billups coming off a major injury?

I thought they were vastly overrated last year. They have Chris Paul who is a superstar but I am not sold on Blake Griffin at all. I just don't like their team or coach very much at all, im thinking best case scenario is the same finish as last year, unless they dramatically improve. They were pretty lucky to get out of the first round.

They made plenty of additions for depth, though most of them have their downsides.

Lamar Odom: Has to re-prove himself.
Ronny Turiaf: Please.
Jamal Crawford: Apparently a ballhog and chemistry killer? Replaces Mo Williams.
Chauncey Billups: Re-sign. Fragile.
Grant Hill: "Getting up there" is an understatement.

Of all those downsides, you need for one or two of them to prove you wrong and their bench improves significantly. I'm not sure that most people view the Clippers as cynically as some of us here on Celticsblog do. They will be a good team, as much as it pains me to say it.

They are a good team that's why they finished 4th in the west last year.

I just don't see how their offseason vaults them into contender status regular season or post season wise.

Maybe all of their off season pickups click and play above and beyond what they are. But looking at what they lost and gained doesn't look much better to me. Unless Griffin becomes a legit star (not just a paper star) than I seem them staying around the same level as last year,  a one and done team

[Fafnir]

If you want real rankings that the ranker must "put his money where his mouth is" by then you need to see a Sportsbook's rankings.  Sportsbook.ag:

1.  MIA
2.  OKC
3.  LAL
4.  SAS
5a.  CHI
5b.  IND
7a.  BOS
7b.  LAC

I'll trust a sportsbook's rankings over some author trying to be bold/website trying to get hits any day.

Do they know something about Chicago that the rest of us, don't? 

Yeah that's confusing to me as well. They've ditched much of the depth that would otherwise allow them to survive Rose's injury.

[fairweatherfan]

If you want real rankings that the ranker must "put his money where his mouth is" by then you need to see a Sportsbook's rankings.  Sportsbook.ag:

1.  MIA
2.  OKC
3.  LAL
4.  SAS
5a.  CHI
5b.  IND
7a.  BOS
7b.  LAC

I'll trust a sportsbook's rankings over some author trying to be bold/website trying to get hits any day.

Do they know something about Chicago that the rest of us, don't? 

Bookmaker odds aren't based on what's most likely to happen, they're based on what's most likely to get people to bet in a way that ensures profits for the bookie.  That's why the Lakers tend to have better odds at Vegas casinos than you'd expect - they have a huge fan base that's close to Vegas.

These rankings don't mean the bookies think Chicago's better than us, just that the bookies expect bettors to favor them.  Different things.

[Donoghus]

If you want real rankings that the ranker must "put his money where his mouth is" by then you need to see a Sportsbook's rankings.  Sportsbook.ag:

1.  MIA
2.  OKC
3.  LAL
4.  SAS
5a.  CHI
5b.  IND
7a.  BOS
7b.  LAC

I'll trust a sportsbook's rankings over some author trying to be bold/website trying to get hits any day.

Do they know something about Chicago that the rest of us, don't? 

Bookmaker odds aren't based on what's most likely to happen, they're based on what's most likely to get people to bet in a way that ensures profits for the bookie.  That's why the Lakers tend to have better odds at Vegas casinos than you'd expect - they have a huge fan base that's close to Vegas.

These rankings don't mean the bookies think Chicago's better than us, just that the bookies expect bettors to favor them.  Different things.

I understand the dynamics of sports betting.  Well versed, trust me.

I still don't see how the average person can look at Chicago with everything that's happened in the past few months and lay money at odds like that.

[fairweatherfan]

I understand the dynamics of sports betting.  Well versed, trust me.

I still don't see how the average person can look at Chicago with everything that's happened in the past few months and lay money at odds like that.

Sorry, didn't mean to come off condescending or anything.  Bulls just have a big fan base is probably the most likely explanation.  I agree, I don't see how anyone could put money on them winning the title unless the odds got really favorable.  But then again, Vegas doesn't keep all those lights running 24-7 off smart gamblers.

[Fafnir]

I guess they're counting on all the new bulls fans "believing" that they'll pull together.

[SHAQATTACK]

thats fine....all this will do is tick off Doc, Pierce, Garnet , Jet and Rondo.   

Just fuel to feed their already hot coals.

[AB_Celtic]

Just fuel to feed their already hot coals.

Jet fuel.

[Vermont Green]

Chicago could well make a late run for the title.  I don't see any surprise in that if the list is who is most likely to win the title, vs. where will they finish in the regular season standings.  Rose comes back, maybe they pick up a key vet, and they are right back as one of the top teams.

[kp4000]

Link: http://www.nba.com/2012/news/powerrankings/08/06/midsummer/index.html

1. MIA
2. OKC
3. LAL
4. SAS
5. LAC
6. BOS

Not a bad placement by any means, but I think the Spurs and Clippers stayed put while the Celtics vastly improved. I'd put us 4th or 3rd.

I'm not all surprise of these rankings. They're assumption rankings that hold no merit. If they're ranking LAL and LAC over the Celtics, then there's a problem. I think the players games do better talking than the talking-heads at NBA.com, Yahoo, NBCSports, SI, SBNation, and CBSSports. lol

I base my Power Rankings on how teams finished last season and off-season moves:

1.Heat
2.OKC
3.Celtics
4.Spurs
5.LAL
5.LAC
6.Pacers
7.Grizzles
8.Nuggets
9.Sixers
10.Bulls
11.Knicks

[AB_Celtic]

I base my Power Rankings on how teams finished last season and off-season moves:

1.Heat
2.OKC
3.Celtics
4.Spurs
5.LAL
5.LAC
6.Pacers
7.Grizzles
8.Nuggets
9.Sixers
10.Bulls
11.Knicks

No Brooklyn?

[droopdog7]

If you want real rankings that the ranker must "put his money where his mouth is" by then you need to see a Sportsbook's rankings.  Sportsbook.ag:

1.  MIA
2.  OKC
3.  LAL
4.  SAS
5a.  CHI
5b.  IND
7a.  BOS
7b.  LAC

I'll trust a sportsbook's rankings over some author trying to be bold/website trying to get hits any day.

Not a bookie but I would imagine that odds take into account perception and popularity, and are potentially even more biased, than an attempted objective look at the rankings.

[RyNye]

EDIT: Nevermind.