[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Im pretty excited for the Knicks to be back in the playoffs, 2004 does not count, I dont expect them to win but I do believe we are gonna be a tough out…Celtics in 6, but we are gonna make em sweat…KG DICK![/quote]
This is the first round match up I want to see the most. Not just to see New York in the playoffs, which I think is great. But also because I think it will be closer than many think.
Yeah man, even though the knicks didnt beat them this year, every game was extremely close. Paul Pierce is an awesome finisher and the celts know how close games. I really believe Rondo is the difference in wether its a route or a close one, if we can contain him somewhat and he can shit the bed at the foul line and shooting jumpers, we are gonna make it tough
[quote]therajraj wrote:
does anyone here follow college ball?
It’s looking like the Raptors will have the 3rd best chance in the lottery this year and I’m wondering is there a big pick in this year’s draft?
Is this year’s draft class looking strong?[/quote]
Weakest draft in a long, long time. There’s a few decent picks at the top(no absolute studs, but kids that would be typical lottery picks); but after those handful of dudes the teams left are going to need mass support groups for their fans because their picks are probably going straight to the d-league(I don’t think the NBA has guarantee roster spots for draftees like the NFL does it?).
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
does anyone here follow college ball?
It’s looking like the Raptors will have the 3rd best chance in the lottery this year and I’m wondering is there a big pick in this year’s draft?
Is this year’s draft class looking strong?[/quote]
Weakest draft in a long, long time. There’s a few decent picks at the top(no absolute studs, but kids that would be typical lottery picks); but after those handful of dudes the teams left are going to need mass support groups for their fans because their picks are probably going straight to the d-league(I don’t think the NBA has guarantee roster spots for draftees like the NFL does it?).[/quote]
1st round picks get guaranteed contrcts, but not roster spots. A couple of years ago Thabeet was sent to the D-League and he was the 2nd pick in the draft.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Im pretty excited for the Knicks to be back in the playoffs, 2004 does not count, I dont expect them to win but I do believe we are gonna be a tough out…Celtics in 6, but we are gonna make em sweat…KG DICK![/quote]
This might sound crazy, but the two first round series that have the biggest potential for upsets [to me] is NYK/BOS and OKC/DEN. Boston gave up so much defensively and NY has so much firepower that it might get interesting, and I like how Denver matches up with OKC. Long, athletic, tons of scorers and they’re deep. Not saying either of these teams will get the upset, just saying I think there’s a shot.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Im pretty excited for the Knicks to be back in the playoffs, 2004 does not count, I dont expect them to win but I do believe we are gonna be a tough out…Celtics in 6, but we are gonna make em sweat…KG DICK![/quote]
This might sound crazy, but the two first round series that have the biggest potential for upsets [to me] is NYK/BOS and OKC/DEN. Boston gave up so much defensively and NY has so much firepower that it might get interesting, and I like how Denver matches up with OKC. Long, athletic, tons of scorers and they’re deep. Not saying either of these teams will get the upset, just saying I think there’s a shot.[/quote]
NO FLASH YOU SAID IT! FLASH IS PICKIN THE KNICKS LOL!
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Im pretty excited for the Knicks to be back in the playoffs, 2004 does not count, I dont expect them to win but I do believe we are gonna be a tough out…Celtics in 6, but we are gonna make em sweat…KG DICK![/quote]
This might sound crazy, but the two first round series that have the biggest potential for upsets [to me] is NYK/BOS and OKC/DEN. Boston gave up so much defensively and NY has so much firepower that it might get interesting, and I like how Denver matches up with OKC. Long, athletic, tons of scorers and they’re deep. Not saying either of these teams will get the upset, just saying I think there’s a shot.[/quote]
I said the same thing about the NY/BOS series earlier and randman replied with some sarcastic comment. I definitely agree with this ^^^
THATS 2!
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]randman wrote:
Another article that rips apart all of Hollinger’s analysis rankings PER and power rankings.
All you have to do is go to google and type “Hollinger’s power rankings flawed” and go through the mountainous volume of articles debunking this idiot’s prowress of a basketball analyst trying to dehydrate basketball into pure “stats”. Yes, I’m talking to u sjc119 Aka the guy who laughs at player injuries.[/quote]
Shit man it’s going to be fun watching you wiggle your way out of some comments you’ve made – most notably: Celtics will win the East, Miami won’t reach the ECF, LA will win the title.
[/quote]
Huh? I’m making predictions. Like everyone else on this thread. I believe the Celts will still win the East? And if I’m wrong your point is? That I’m not Nostradamus?
And don’t twist my words. I said (at the time) that Miami may not even reach ECF depending on how the seedings works. I still believe the Lakers are going to win it.
You are twisting my words. I said one of the best in the last 15 years. After therajraj called me out on it and I checked back to the 2001 Lakers champions going 15 and 1 in the playoffs I retracted my statement. This has been posted numerous times. But you are choosing to ignore those posts.
Just about everything you say is worthless. I can see why Whiteflash blocked you. You are becoming the next drewdines in this thread. You are a joke. Go catch up on your 80s rap lingo.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]randman wrote:
I think it’s really important for the Lakers to win tonight to secure the number 2 seed because I want the Spurs and the Thunder to beat up on each other. I’d rather see Dallas in the second round and then deal with the Spurs/Thunder in the Western Conference Finals.[/quote]
Be careful what you wish for. A lot of people have been sleeping on the Mavs. It’s gotten to a point in their recent history where people have kind of given up on them making any serious playoff push, no matter what their regular season record is. Maybe without all this attention Mark Cuban and the Mavs can be the ones doing the upsetting instead of being the ‘upsetees’.[/quote]
The Mavs aren’t that good. You’re an idiot.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]randman wrote:
Another article that rips apart all of Hollinger’s analysis rankings PER and power rankings.
All you have to do is go to google and type “Hollinger’s power rankings flawed” and go through the mountainous volume of articles debunking this idiot’s prowress of a basketball analyst trying to dehydrate basketball into pure “stats”. Yes, I’m talking to u sjc119 Aka the guy who laughs at player injuries.[/quote]
Ofcourse you don’t like Hollinger. He represents a threat to the Laker fan way of thinking. “Hey look at us we got Kobe and size down low, we’re unstoppable!”[/quote]
Seriously, you are starting to troll by quoting every one of my posts. Hollinger’s statistics are flawed. I gave you numerous hits to articles disecting in detail why. The only intelligent thing you can come back with is “yeah, you don’t like him cuz he doesn’t like the Lakers!” Is this really the best you can do?
I’m about ready to put you on a block filter as well. I must have really hurt your feelings for you to consider me so important to quote all of a sudden. ;0
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
[quote]randman wrote:
But based on the most recent prognosis on Bynum, even a 50% Bynum in the Western conference finals I think would be enough to eke by the Thunder still.[/quote]
I agree with this. Bynum isn’t so much important statistically as he is for being a big body who can neutralize guys like Perkins, which allows Gasol to work uninhibited.
At least that’s what I noticed in the Finals vs. the Celtics last year, where an also injured Bynum was good enough to let Gasol do well whenever he was on the court. When he wasn’t there Gasol had trouble and the Lakers lost.
But I disagree with the prediction of the Celtics making the Finals. They’re already beat up, getting tired, missing their two best defensive players from last year [Perkins, and Tony Allen]. The two guys replacing Perkins role are asscheeks. And they have to get by New York, and Miami–who at least have shown in their last match up that they will play rough too, and the Celtics didn’t know how to handle it that night. I think they’ll get past those teams, but they’ll be tired by the time the Bulls [who have it much easier] will face them. [/quote]
This is the one I’m most waffling on. I want to pick the Bulls now but I have to stick with my original prediction. It’s ever since Ainge traded away Perkins which I still can’t understand. This has to be the most controversial trade for a team that was positioned to possibly win the championship to now seriously undermining that potential.
Like I said, I think Miami also matches up much better with them now without Perkins banging down low and could potentially upset them. The Perkins trade was that big of a deal.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Im pretty excited for the Knicks to be back in the playoffs, 2004 does not count, I dont expect them to win but I do believe we are gonna be a tough out…Celtics in 6, but we are gonna make em sweat…KG DICK![/quote]
This might sound crazy, but the two first round series that have the biggest potential for upsets [to me] is NYK/BOS and OKC/DEN. Boston gave up so much defensively and NY has so much firepower that it might get interesting, and I like how Denver matches up with OKC. Long, athletic, tons of scorers and they’re deep. Not saying either of these teams will get the upset, just saying I think there’s a shot.[/quote]
I said the same thing about the NY/BOS series earlier and randman replied with some sarcastic comment. I definitely agree with this ^^^
[/quote]
Yes, you are all smoking dope on this one. Sorry Mattyflash. No disrespect to the Knicks. It’s more about everyone writing off the Celts again so early.
[quote]randman wrote:
Another article that rips apart all of Hollinger’s analysis rankings PER and power rankings.
All you have to do is go to google and type “Hollinger’s power rankings flawed” and go through the mountainous volume of articles debunking this idiot’s prowress of a basketball analyst trying to dehydrate basketball into pure “stats”. Yes, I’m talking to u sjc119 Aka the guy who laughs at player injuries.[/quote]
LMAO. The article you posted has the following paragraph:
“Hollinger decides to try to explain a playerâ??s worth first with the PER (a massive combination of stats equalled out after some long division and subtraction/addition (not a math major here. . .I think in simple terms) and then by his Power Rankings (all the PERs together amongst other things).”
He doesn’t have the SLIGHTEST clue how EITHER stat is calculated he just knows they are wrong. That’s like saying “I don’t know physics but I know gravity is false”
laugh at player injuries? Sorry, were you using a stat like Win-Loss record that accurately reflects player injuries? Oh wait that reflects them even worse (at least the Power Rankings are indirectly affected because they weight recent games more than old ones, so bad play shows up more quickly).
They aren’t perfect - and he says they aren’t - they are merely meant to show something more accurate than win-loss record, and I think they are better than won-loss record. I would rather have a team that won by 20 points 3 times and lost in overtime once than have a team that won by 1pt 4 straight times.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
does anyone here follow college ball?
It’s looking like the Raptors will have the 3rd best chance in the lottery this year and I’m wondering is there a big pick in this year’s draft?
Is this year’s draft class looking strong?[/quote]
This year’s draft blows. Kyrie Irving played about 10 games all season (i.e. his entire college career) and could be the #1 pick.
BTW Laker fans: the seeding could not be better for you. You really won’t even need Bynum until the WCF in my opinion.
Blazers are decent but Camby is injured and they do not have anyone to defend Gasol (admittedly I haven’t seen Aldridge play in a while but every time I have seen him, he is a matador in the post on D). Mavs will lose to Lakers in 5 if they get to the 2nd round.
They will need Bynum for SAS or especially OKC
This is for randman: Before you call me a “Hollinger fanboy” - I am not a “fanboy” of anyone, I certainly don’t agree with any one person on ANY topic about everything they believe. I think he’s right more often than wrong, but do not always agree.
Case in point - he thinks Orlando is a sneaky tough series for Chicago and I vehemently disagree. Chicago takes ORL in 5. I also disagree with him in that I think the Blazers could take LA to 6 or 7 games.
One thing we all agree on is that these are shaping up to be some damn good playoffs. If the reg season were any indication, that’s a lock. Get ready everyone for 15 great teams plus the Pacers!
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]randman wrote:
Another article that rips apart all of Hollinger’s analysis rankings PER and power rankings.
All you have to do is go to google and type “Hollinger’s power rankings flawed” and go through the mountainous volume of articles debunking this idiot’s prowress of a basketball analyst trying to dehydrate basketball into pure “stats”. Yes, I’m talking to u sjc119 Aka the guy who laughs at player injuries.[/quote]
LMAO. The article you posted has the following paragraph:
“Hollinger decides to try to explain a playerâ??s worth first with the PER (a massive combination of stats equalled out after some long division and subtraction/addition (not a math major here. . .I think in simple terms) and then by his Power Rankings (all the PERs together amongst other things).”
He doesn’t have the SLIGHTEST clue how EITHER stat is calculated he just knows they are wrong. That’s like saying “I don’t know physics but I know gravity is false”
laugh at player injuries? Sorry, were you using a stat like Win-Loss record that accurately reflects player injuries? Oh wait that reflects them even worse (at least the Power Rankings are indirectly affected because they weight recent games more than old ones, so bad play shows up more quickly).
They aren’t perfect - and he says they aren’t - they are merely meant to show something more accurate than win-loss record, and I think they are better than won-loss record. I would rather have a team that won by 20 points 3 times and lost in overtime once than have a team that won by 1pt 4 straight times.[/quote]
Actually if you read the whole article in detail the author does have a very good clue as to how Hollinger calculates power rankings. You can also go peruse the other hundred articles criticizing his power rankings. A team’s wins are almost negligible in his overall calculation (especially home wins).
Pulling out one paragraph to debunk the whole article’s criticism or that of any of the other article’s valid criticisms is a VERY WEAK defense of the buffoon named Hollinger.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
BTW Laker fans: the seeding could not be better for you. You really won’t even need Bynum until the WCF in my opinion.
Blazers are decent but Camby is injured and they do not have anyone to defend Gasol (admittedly I haven’t seen Aldridge play in a while but every time I have seen him, he is a matador in the post on D). Mavs will lose to Lakers in 5 if they get to the 2nd round.
They will need Bynum for SAS or especially OKC[/quote]
I agree with this. The seeding COULD NOT have worked out any better for the Lakers.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
This is for randman: Before you call me a “Hollinger fanboy” - I am not a “fanboy” of anyone, I certainly don’t agree with any one person on ANY topic about everything they believe. I think he’s right more often than wrong, but do not always agree.
[/quote]
I could disagree anymore on this statement. He’s often WRONG much more than he is right. He is absolutely useless. After reading about a dozen of his articles year ago I just couldn’t stomach him anymore. Just the WORST analyst on ESPN.
I can’t even take him seriously. I liken him to a tabloid type journalist that happens to post articles on a sports site. I can’t for the life of me figure out why ESPN keeps this guy employed.