I've been saying for a while that Boston needs to picks a direction and go with it. That direction is either trying to build a contender and winning now or trying to build a contender for the future. I just don't see this current path as sustainable and believe it will ultimately end up sabotaging whatever direction Boston ultimately chooses. Boston is hoarding assets that could be used to build a real contender (George, Butler, Cousins, etc.). At the same time, if the goal is to win a title around Brown and now Tatum and the future picks, then you hurt that goal by not allowing those players to get as many minutes as they can handle and by not acquiring future assets for the veterans. We are already starting to see this come to fruition in trade of Bradley. Had Bradley been moved earlier, he likely would have gotten more than Morris back in return (the trade also cost Boston a 2nd round pick). Those problems will only multiply as more players contracts expire and more young players are added to the team. The current salary structure just isn't sustainable for a team that isn't a realistic contender.
We're a contender right now if IT is healthy.
No we are not. Boston would likely finish 5th in the West and no matter what the regular season records are, will be a fairly heavy underdog to a healthy Cavs team in the East.
Why does Vegas rate them 3/4th overall to win it all?
Vegas odds have nothing to do with which team is better. They have to do with all sorts of factors. I mean take a team like Oklahoma City or Minnesota. Their first round is likely against the other, the second round is against the Warriors, the WCF would like be Houston or San Antonio and then the Finals would likely be against the Cavs. There is almost no way the Thunder or the Wolves would win all 4 of those match-ups. The Celtics on the other hand should cruise into the ECF to face the Cavs and then would have whatever team comes out of the West. That is a much more manageable road, but it certainly doesn't mean in a vacuum that Boston is better than the Wolves or Thunder (might be, might not be).
Moranis you are in way over your head and know nothing about Vegas lines. I've talked to you enough on here to know that so don't take this little
Charade any further
Vegas lines are designed to get an equal number of bets on either side of the line and obviously account for conference, opponents, etc.
Put it this way, do you really think Boston is better than San Antonio or Houston?
If you really want me to educate you on lines and how they work and what they are for upcoming seasons I will. Houston is pegged for 2 more wins than Boston right now. Spurs have not been released on the sites I trust yet. With the loss of dedmon, Parker missing most of the season and possibly having an injured gay for part of the first half I predict they will be lower than the Celtics by a game. I will update you when it is announced. The cavs are projected for the same exact wins as the Celtics. A lot can and will change before the next playoffs but if it happened in a vacuum Cleveland would be dogs to the Celtics if the Celtics had home court and there were no late season injuries. This agenda you have pushed that the cavs are a significant level above the Celtics is not something that the extremely smart people paid millions of dollars currently believe and I trust them a lot more than you.
Cleveland has the 2nd best championship odds at +500 (GS is -170). Boston, after Hayward, is +750 with the 3rd best odds, ahead of both Houston and San Antonio which are +1000. http://heavy.com/sports/2017/07/nba-championship-odds-2018-gordon-hayward-celtics-cavaliers-warriors/
+- for total wins is not the same thing as championship odds, and championship odds are not the same thing as which team is better.
So I ask again, is Boston better than Houston and San Antonio?
As of right now they are better than Spurs. Houston is impossible to answer cause they have a new team. Probably won't be something we can answer till we see how much Chris Paul helps them. You inadvertently made my point with your post though. Plus +500 odds and +750 odds to win the championship is not a significant difference. If both teams don't make any moves they would cross paths at some point in the season. This is the opposite of the Boston "would be a heavy underdog" statement you made earlier. Thank you for taking my side. PS I really hope you never bet moranis. If you do pm me before hand
Houston added Chris Paul to a team that won more games than Boston did last year in the much tougher western conference. Either way, how do you explain the Spurs having worse Vegas odds than Boston if championship odds are somehow indicative of how good a team is?
+250 is still pretty significant. And we know it is pretty significant because adding Hayward only closed the gap on the Cavs by +200. Look at this way, before Hayward Cleveland was +450 and after they are +500 a change of just +50. Before Hayward Boston was +900 and improved to +750 after Hayward a decent enough improvement of -150. So what we learn from that is Vegas says Hayward does almost nothing to Cleveland's odds of winning the title (which are pretty clearly tied to that team that is -170) and while Boston's odds improved we can put it together that they improved because Vegas now thinks Boston should clearly be the 2nd best team in the East, not because they are a real threat to Cleveland. If Boston was a real threat to Cleveland, Cleveland's odds would have changed by a lot more than just +50.
BTW, we also know all of what I said is true because that article also has the Eastern Conference odds. Cleveland is -140 and Boston is +275. Before Hayward, Cleveland was -150 and Boston was +350. As Wyc said earlier this year, Boston is 2 players away. Boston added 1 player, not 2. That is why I think Ainge whiffed when he didn't add George. George would have made a real difference.
Cleveland is a pretty heavy favorite to come out of the East in Vegas. This isn't me being crazy or a hater or drinking the Cleveland water as you say. This is me looking around and using my eyes and you know listening to Vegas. The Cavs have by far the best player in a series against Boston. You could make an argument the Cavs also have the 2nd best player in a series against Boston. You win playoff series off your best players, not your depth or your role players.
It is probably mainly you misusing terms (and it is pretty funny for you to try and lecture me about lines and what they mean cause I have done sports betting and lineshopping pretty daily for about a decade in regards to the NBA). It is not something I occasionally look up in the off-season to try and support some whimsical point.
Golden State is -400 to win the Western Conference. That means you would have to bet 400 dollars on them just to win 100 dollars. If you bet on the team with the second best odds, Houston, they are +1000 to win the West. That means you would get 1000 dollars on a 100 hundred dollar bet. Or if you bet the same 400 dollars you were going to bet on the Warriors to win the title to get 100 back, you would get a mind boggling 4000 dollars back. That is what you are talking about with someone that is a very huge favorite to win a title/conference.
When you are talking about two teams that are +500 and +750 you are talking about two teams that are viewed very close and one is being given a slight edge due to a combination of having a stronger pedigree and also getting in a lot of square money. As you pointed out earlier, they don't are also basing these lines on what they think people will bet on and if they put Cleveland too high they can end up with a liability on them based off there being a long history of square betters, or joe public, throwing money on whatever team has Lebron James (someone that talks and looks at this stuff like you).
If the teams start the season at +500 and +750 it would be fairly shocking if their title odds don't cross each other at some point in the system. Cleveland loses 6 out of 10 in December and Love has a small ankle injury and Boston goes 8-2 with Brown or Tatum playing a bigger role than expected and Cleveland would have longer odds than Boston.
As already noted, both teams are also projected for the exact same amount of wins. If Boston does a little better than projected and Cleveland does a little bit worse in the regular season and Boston gets home court, Boston would most likely be favorite to win the series. For a little background, do you also realize for the April 5th game we had against them last year when the Cavs were playing poorly that the Celtics were actually favored to win that game and the Cavs were the underdog? Do you not think adding an all-star in his prime plus a rookie that looks like he can be a contributing rotation player to a team with Lebron James getting a year older the teams are not extremely close?
Finally clearly something else you don't understand is the concept of lines and odds "moving around." These odds are going to continue to change (and a lot) throughout the next few months. It can move because some people with a large amount of money decide it is the time to place their bet on one of the two teams. If a group like Right Angle Sports decided they thought the Cavs or Celtics were undervalued on a specific book they alone could move the odds dramatically (much more than the +50 to +100 you are trying to base an argument off (which is a not a significant change). You also probably have some people, perhaps like yourself, that believe the Cavs will still end up with Anthony or Wade on a minimum contract before the season ends that is decreasing the Cavs at the moment and will disappear if/when Carmelo ends up in Houston.
The wins future and general betting market do not reflect the way you talk about things at all. They reflect that the Warriors are the best team in the league by several levels and everyone else is 3-4 levels between them. The odds also reflect that the gap has widened between them and everyone else over the course of the last 15 months significantly. It also reflects that the Celtic and Cavs continue to get very closer and are viewed on a very similar level. Whether it was the Cavs or Celtics that won the champion you are debating about whether it would be a huge upset or a tiny bit less of a huge upset in the NBA. It is not that Cleveland is clearly on some separate level.
Finally, I'll offer again, if you really want to learn about odds and get into this I would explain a lot of stuff to you over PM. I have legit does this very seriously for a decade and have learned a lot about line movement, arbitrary values, middles and fascinating things from talking to a close friend that literally bought his house from understanding these things. I can tell from the way you talk about some of this stuff that your knowledge is not at that level and it becomes a bit obnoxious for you to try and pretend you are explaining this stuff to me.
Topic: What fans are actually saying when they express disappointment this offseason (Read 13565 times)