The Celtics are a lock to get out of the 1st round

[nickagneta]

In what way is Brooklyn "a lot better"?

Yeah, he lost me on fhat statement too.

Brooklyn lost Young (and Jack who wasn't on the roster at the end of the year anyway), but is essentially adding 3 1st round picks (LaVert, RHJ, McCullough) as well as Lin, Booker, and Johnson.  They will be a lot better.  They have a lot more depth and better overall roster construction.  I expect them to win 30-35 games, which is a pretty large jump.

Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part but I fail to see how a team that lost their 2nd best player and lost 60+ games last year will somehow improve by 15 wins with the addition of mid-20s 1st round picks and 3 "10th man off the bench" types. That's like saying if we signed Yab and Zizic this year the Cs could expect to jump to 60 wins. We're not saying that even with the #3 overall pick and getting a 5 time All Star in free agency...and we didn't lose our 2nd best player either.

Once Jack got hurt Larkin and Sloan were the starting PG for the Nets.  This is also a team that mailed in the last 10 games losing them all.  Lin is a significant improvement.  RHJ showed great promise before he was hurt and McCullough looked like a real contributor the last few games.  The Nets were never going to be a good team, but they were very thin and losing two starters (RHJ and Jack) just destroyed the team.  The increased depth is going to help them immensely.

And you can't be serious about the Boston comparison.  It is a lot easier to go from terrible to bad than from good to great.

Before Jack and RHJ got hurt, Brooklyn was losing at a pace only a few percentage points higher than what they ended up at the end of the season. Except for one 10 game stretch, the team was horrible, regardless of who they threw out there.

[Granath]

Once Jack got hurt Larkin and Sloan were the starting PG for the Nets.  This is also a team that mailed in the last 10 games losing them all.  Lin is a significant improvement.  RHJ showed great promise before he was hurt and McCullough looked like a real contributor the last few games.  The Nets were never going to be a good team, but they were very thin and losing two starters (RHJ and Jack) just destroyed the team.  The increased depth is going to help them immensely.

And you can't be serious about the Boston comparison.  It is a lot easier to go from terrible to bad than from good to great.

I would disagree.

1. Meaningless minutes at the end of the season does not make for a good prediction of future success. If that were the case Olynyk would be scoring 25 ppg for us this year based on his end of the year performances two years ago. So the fact that McCullough looked like a real contributor doesn't mean squat. SOMEONE had to put the ball in the bucket for them those last few games and, as you pointed out, they lost every one of those games. 

2. RHJ was averaging 5 & 5 before he got hurt even with significant minutes. If you play almost anyone 20 mpg they're going to accumulate some stats. He was a mid-20s pick and is coming off an injury. I don't think it's reasonable to set tremendously high expectations for him.

3. I agree that Lin is an upgrade but he's on his 5th team in 6 years for a reason. He's simply not very good.

4. They replaced bodies but I'm not sure that they are really any deeper. The guys who are coming on board are what I said they were - 10th man off the bench type of guys. They had those kind of guys last year. I'm not sure this crop is significantly better.

5. The loss of RHJ and Jack made no impact on the win/loss percentage of the team. They sucked before and they sucked about equally as hard afterwards.

Meanwhile, they did lose their 2nd best player and I'm not sure any of the growth that would be expected by rookies makes up for that loss. Their only good player managed to stay healthy last year which was a rarity. They still were one of the healthiest teams in the league last year. That's a lot of things that did go right for them last year that either won't or may not go right for them this year. I also evaluate them in context with the rest of the league. Remember that for each one of those 15 wins someone else has to lose. When looking at the Nets against the rest of their peers, I don't see the kind of growth that would allow them to leap up 15 games in the standings. If anything, they may have been leapfrogged by the other bottom feeders.

I am serious about the Boston comparison. If a bunch of mid-20s picks coming off injuries and a couple of bench role players can improve a team that lost their 2nd best player by 15 wins, why wouldn't the #3 overall pick and a 5 time all star do the same for a more experienced team that lost far less? I think the comparison fits quite well because both are equally ludicrous scenarios.

[Moranis]

?

Once Jack got hurt Larkin and Sloan were the starting PG for the Nets.  This is also a team that mailed in the last 10 games losing them all.  Lin is a significant improvement.  RHJ showed great promise before he was hurt and McCullough looked like a real contributor the last few games.  The Nets were never going to be a good team, but they were very thin and losing two starters (RHJ and Jack) just destroyed the team.  The increased depth is going to help them immensely.

And you can't be serious about the Boston comparison.  It is a lot easier to go from terrible to bad than from good to great.

I would disagree.

1. Meaningless minutes at the end of the season does not make for a good prediction of future success. If that were the case Olynyk would be scoring 25 ppg for us this year based on his end of the year performances two years ago. So the fact that McCullough looked like a real contributor doesn't mean squat. SOMEONE had to put the ball in the bucket for them those last few games and, as you pointed out, they lost every one of those games. 

2. RHJ was averaging 5 & 5 before he got hurt even with significant minutes. If you play almost anyone 20 mpg they're going to accumulate some stats. He was a mid-20s pick and is coming off an injury. I don't think it's reasonable to set tremendously high expectations for him.

3. I agree that Lin is an upgrade but he's on his 5th team in 6 years for a reason. He's simply not very good.

4. They replaced bodies but I'm not sure that they are really any deeper. The guys who are coming on board are what I said they were - 10th man off the bench type of guys. They had those kind of guys last year. I'm not sure this crop is significantly better.

5. The loss of RHJ and Jack made no impact on the win/loss percentage of the team. They sucked before and they sucked about equally as hard afterwards.

Meanwhile, they did lose their 2nd best player and I'm not sure any of the growth that would be expected by rookies makes up for that loss. Their only good player managed to stay healthy last year which was a rarity. They still were one of the healthiest teams in the league last year. That's a lot of things that did go right for them last year that either won't or may not go right for them this year. I also evaluate them in context with the rest of the league. Remember that for each one of those 15 wins someone else has to lose. When looking at the Nets against the rest of their peers, I don't see the kind of growth that would allow them to leap up 15 games in the standings. If anything, they may have been leapfrogged by the other bottom feeders.

I am serious about the Boston comparison. If a bunch of mid-20s picks coming off injuries and a couple of bench role players can improve a team that lost their 2nd best player by 15 wins, why wouldn't the #3 overall pick and a 5 time all star do the same for a more experienced team that lost far less? I think the comparison fits quite well because both are equally ludicrous scenarios.

The Nets were 5-8 in games RHJ started and finished (they lost the game he got hurt in, but I didn't count that one).  He was already showing excellent promise as a perimeter defender, which he was basically the only such wing defender on the team.  McCullough would have been a lottery pick if he wasn't injured at the draft (that is why he didn't play until late in the year).  Those two guys are very solid players.  Lin is a significant improvement over everyone they had running the point last year, including Jack.  Not a world beater, but an improvement.  Booker had the 5th most minutes on a 40 win Jazz team last year (he was the 3rd big behind Gobert and Favors).  He is a nice player, not as good as Young of course, but not some end of the bench player either.  Losing Young will obviously hurt, but I think the improved play from PG and SF as well as the improved depth will more than make up for his loss.  And let's be clear, I'm not saying the Nets are going to be a good team, they won't be, I'm just saying I expect them to be in the 30-35 win range, which is a good deal better than the 21 wins they had last year.  Nothing more nothing less. 

[nickagneta]

?

Once Jack got hurt Larkin and Sloan were the starting PG for the Nets.  This is also a team that mailed in the last 10 games losing them all.  Lin is a significant improvement.  RHJ showed great promise before he was hurt and McCullough looked like a real contributor the last few games.  The Nets were never going to be a good team, but they were very thin and losing two starters (RHJ and Jack) just destroyed the team.  The increased depth is going to help them immensely.

And you can't be serious about the Boston comparison.  It is a lot easier to go from terrible to bad than from good to great.

I would disagree.

1. Meaningless minutes at the end of the season does not make for a good prediction of future success. If that were the case Olynyk would be scoring 25 ppg for us this year based on his end of the year performances two years ago. So the fact that McCullough looked like a real contributor doesn't mean squat. SOMEONE had to put the ball in the bucket for them those last few games and, as you pointed out, they lost every one of those games. 

2. RHJ was averaging 5 & 5 before he got hurt even with significant minutes. If you play almost anyone 20 mpg they're going to accumulate some stats. He was a mid-20s pick and is coming off an injury. I don't think it's reasonable to set tremendously high expectations for him.

3. I agree that Lin is an upgrade but he's on his 5th team in 6 years for a reason. He's simply not very good.

4. They replaced bodies but I'm not sure that they are really any deeper. The guys who are coming on board are what I said they were - 10th man off the bench type of guys. They had those kind of guys last year. I'm not sure this crop is significantly better.

5. The loss of RHJ and Jack made no impact on the win/loss percentage of the team. They sucked before and they sucked about equally as hard afterwards.

Meanwhile, they did lose their 2nd best player and I'm not sure any of the growth that would be expected by rookies makes up for that loss. Their only good player managed to stay healthy last year which was a rarity. They still were one of the healthiest teams in the league last year. That's a lot of things that did go right for them last year that either won't or may not go right for them this year. I also evaluate them in context with the rest of the league. Remember that for each one of those 15 wins someone else has to lose. When looking at the Nets against the rest of their peers, I don't see the kind of growth that would allow them to leap up 15 games in the standings. If anything, they may have been leapfrogged by the other bottom feeders.

I am serious about the Boston comparison. If a bunch of mid-20s picks coming off injuries and a couple of bench role players can improve a team that lost their 2nd best player by 15 wins, why wouldn't the #3 overall pick and a 5 time all star do the same for a more experienced team that lost far less? I think the comparison fits quite well because both are equally ludicrous scenarios.

The Nets were 5-8 in games RHJ started and finished (they lost the game he got hurt in, but I didn't count that one).  He was already showing excellent promise as a perimeter defender, which he was basically the only such wing defender on the team.  McCullough would have been a lottery pick if he wasn't injured at the draft (that is why he didn't play until late in the year).  Those two guys are very solid players.  Lin is a significant improvement over everyone they had running the point last year, including Jack.  Not a world beater, but an improvement.  Booker had the 5th most minutes on a 40 win Jazz team last year (he was the 3rd big behind Gobert and Favors).  He is a nice player, not as good as Young of course, but not some end of the bench player either.  Losing Young will obviously hurt, but I think the improved play from PG and SF as well as the improved depth will more than make up for his loss.  And let's be clear, I'm not saying the Nets are going to be a good team, they won't be, I'm just saying I expect them to be in the 30-35 win range, which is a good deal better than the 21 wins they had last year.  Nothing more nothing less.

9 to 15 wins is a fairly significant improvement for any team but especially for a 21 win team. I doubt the players they added bring that many more wins over the players they subtracted.

[Granath]

9 to 15 wins is a fairly significant improvement for any team but especially for a 21 win team. I doubt the players they added bring that many more wins over the players they subtracted.

No, all those mid-20s rookies will be superb don't you know? And Lin is such a great PG he'll add wins to the Nets AND add to the Hornets win totals as well (per the other thread he posted today)! He's so good he wins games for two teams at once!

Meanwhile, acquiring a 4-time All Star, the #3 pick and having a host of higher drafted young players than the Nets won't contribute to the Celtics win totals one bit. You know, because it's the Celtics and they always suck. Except RJ Hunter. He was drafted 28th so obviously he's making the All Star team this year.

PS - The Nets went 5-12 in games started by RHJ. That's a 29% win percentage. The Nets won 25% of their games. We're not looking at much of a statistical difference - nothing that wouldn't be explained by sheer statistical variability. It's not even correlation never mind causation.

[Kuberski33]

Without a guy who can distribute the ball in their half court offense everything is going to bog down as there is no true point guard on the roster. 

Ahem...IT finished 11th in the NBA in assists last year. You may want to rethink your post.

In the words of a certain presidential candidate...I'll double down on what I said. :-)
But the Celtics are also not a complete picture yet.  I'm expecting at least one more major move.

[Moranis]

?

Once Jack got hurt Larkin and Sloan were the starting PG for the Nets.  This is also a team that mailed in the last 10 games losing them all.  Lin is a significant improvement.  RHJ showed great promise before he was hurt and McCullough looked like a real contributor the last few games.  The Nets were never going to be a good team, but they were very thin and losing two starters (RHJ and Jack) just destroyed the team.  The increased depth is going to help them immensely.

And you can't be serious about the Boston comparison.  It is a lot easier to go from terrible to bad than from good to great.

I would disagree.

1. Meaningless minutes at the end of the season does not make for a good prediction of future success. If that were the case Olynyk would be scoring 25 ppg for us this year based on his end of the year performances two years ago. So the fact that McCullough looked like a real contributor doesn't mean squat. SOMEONE had to put the ball in the bucket for them those last few games and, as you pointed out, they lost every one of those games. 

2. RHJ was averaging 5 & 5 before he got hurt even with significant minutes. If you play almost anyone 20 mpg they're going to accumulate some stats. He was a mid-20s pick and is coming off an injury. I don't think it's reasonable to set tremendously high expectations for him.

3. I agree that Lin is an upgrade but he's on his 5th team in 6 years for a reason. He's simply not very good.

4. They replaced bodies but I'm not sure that they are really any deeper. The guys who are coming on board are what I said they were - 10th man off the bench type of guys. They had those kind of guys last year. I'm not sure this crop is significantly better.

5. The loss of RHJ and Jack made no impact on the win/loss percentage of the team. They sucked before and they sucked about equally as hard afterwards.

Meanwhile, they did lose their 2nd best player and I'm not sure any of the growth that would be expected by rookies makes up for that loss. Their only good player managed to stay healthy last year which was a rarity. They still were one of the healthiest teams in the league last year. That's a lot of things that did go right for them last year that either won't or may not go right for them this year. I also evaluate them in context with the rest of the league. Remember that for each one of those 15 wins someone else has to lose. When looking at the Nets against the rest of their peers, I don't see the kind of growth that would allow them to leap up 15 games in the standings. If anything, they may have been leapfrogged by the other bottom feeders.

I am serious about the Boston comparison. If a bunch of mid-20s picks coming off injuries and a couple of bench role players can improve a team that lost their 2nd best player by 15 wins, why wouldn't the #3 overall pick and a 5 time all star do the same for a more experienced team that lost far less? I think the comparison fits quite well because both are equally ludicrous scenarios.

The Nets were 5-8 in games RHJ started and finished (they lost the game he got hurt in, but I didn't count that one).  He was already showing excellent promise as a perimeter defender, which he was basically the only such wing defender on the team.  McCullough would have been a lottery pick if he wasn't injured at the draft (that is why he didn't play until late in the year).  Those two guys are very solid players.  Lin is a significant improvement over everyone they had running the point last year, including Jack.  Not a world beater, but an improvement.  Booker had the 5th most minutes on a 40 win Jazz team last year (he was the 3rd big behind Gobert and Favors).  He is a nice player, not as good as Young of course, but not some end of the bench player either.  Losing Young will obviously hurt, but I think the improved play from PG and SF as well as the improved depth will more than make up for his loss.  And let's be clear, I'm not saying the Nets are going to be a good team, they won't be, I'm just saying I expect them to be in the 30-35 win range, which is a good deal better than the 21 wins they had last year.  Nothing more nothing less.

9 to 15 wins is a fairly significant improvement for any team but especially for a 21 win team. I doubt the players they added bring that many more wins over the players they subtracted.

Happens a lot more than you would think.  I mean for example, in 14/15 4 teams won 21 or less games, Wolves 16, Knicks 17, Sixers 18, Lakers 21.  In 15/16, the Sixers and Lakers got worse (10 and 17 wins), but the Wolves jumped to 29 and the Knicks jumped to 32 wins.  So two teams got worse and two teams improved by at least 13 games.  In 13/14 only the Bucks and Sixers won less than 21 games.  The Sixers got 1 game worse from 19 to 18, but the Bucks went from 15 wins to 41 wins and the playoffs.  Again 50% of the terrible teams made a nice jump.  How about the 12/13 season, the Magic at 20 and Bobcats at 21 the only two teams at 21 or less wins.  The Magic went up to 23, but the Bobcats jumped to 43 and a playoff birth.  Again 50% of the teams a very nice jump. 

Bad teams are often bad teams for discrete reasons and they rarely are really bad teams for long.  Now the Nets are a bit different because they didn't reap the reward of a high draft pick, but they did have injuries and have added some players.  Could they be just as bad, sure, but I am guessing they will improve in the 9 to 16 win range.

[dreamgreen]

Go bet on Philly than!

Sure, I'll bet that they win more than 10 games this year. Done! How much do you want to put on this wager?

After all, using your "logic" you can't project them to be any better because the players haven't proven anything yet! Thus I'm sure you're eager to take that bet. Just let me know how much you want to bet and we can both send our wager amounts to Roy for holding throughout the entire season.

Over 10 games? You're making sense for the first time. Put your over/under up I'll go $1k if I like your number. 

[Granath]

Go bet on Philly than!

Sure, I'll bet that they win more than 10 games this year. Done! How much do you want to put on this wager?

After all, using your "logic" you can't project them to be any better because the players haven't proven anything yet! Thus I'm sure you're eager to take that bet. Just let me know how much you want to bet and we can both send our wager amounts to Roy for holding throughout the entire season.

Over 10 games? You're making sense for the first time. Put your over/under up I'll go $1k if I like your number.

No, we're working off of your so-called logic. After all, since there's no way to project the 76ers young players will get any better they should finish with the same number of wins, right?

So the number is 10 wins. I'll even give you two more. So you have 12 wins or fewer next season. I have more than 12 wins over next season. I'm sure you'll be more than happy to take that bet with your powerful logical skills.

[dreamgreen]

Go bet on Philly than!

Sure, I'll bet that they win more than 10 games this year. Done! How much do you want to put on this wager?

After all, using your "logic" you can't project them to be any better because the players haven't proven anything yet! Thus I'm sure you're eager to take that bet. Just let me know how much you want to bet and we can both send our wager amounts to Roy for holding throughout the entire season.

Over 10 games? You're making sense for the first time. Put your over/under up I'll go $1k if I like your number.

No, we're working off of your so-called logic. After all, since there's no way to project the 76ers young players will get any better they should finish with the same number of wins, right?

So the number is 10 wins. I'll even give you two more. So you have 12 wins or fewer next season. I have more than 12 wins over next season. I'm sure you'll be more than happy to take that bet with your powerful logical skills.

Listen Princess, learn how to read. I didn't say young players can't get better any moron knows that's not the case. You are assuming they are all going to be better and take it to the next level. We all hope they will but they all could end up being James Young. You can't count on them right now none of them have shown Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.!

The fact you have the guts to say Philly will win more than 12 games tells me a lot, it's like saying GSW will win over 60 games.  Lets see what their roster looks like at the start of the season and we can pick our number than.