# Fans preseason win predictions (interesting results)



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

I went to well over 50 nba boards (and team sub-boards) to get an idea of what fans are predicting for their teams this year. I acquired over 600 picks using the following "rules":

*Rules*

1. I only counted picks from a fan of that team. If I knew a pick was being made for a team by a fan of a different team, I would not count it.

2. I only counted actual picks that didn't have too many conditions (e.g. "if this team stays healthy and they gel and we are able to hit 35% of our 3s, then we will win ___").

3. If someone gave a range, I would take the average.

4. I did not count absurd picks which were most likely jokes (e.g. "82-0!").

5. Vague picks did not count (e.g. "mid 50s", "at least 40", "40+", or "low 30s").

6. Also did not count when people said "I'd be happy with..." or "I'm hoping for" - I wanted actual predictions, not what fans wanted (two different things).

I received at least 10 picks from each team (some with more than 50). Here's what I got (in order of divisional standings, in wins rounded to nearest tenth):

*Standings*

Atlantic Division
New Jersey Nets 51.3
Philadelphia 76ers 47.6
New York Knicks 44.9
Boston Celtics 43.0
Toronto Raptors 32.7

Southeast Division
Miami Heat 61.0
Washington Wizards 43.3
Orlando Magic 43.3
Atlanta Hawks 28.9
Charlotte Bobcats 27.8

Central Division
Indiana Pacers 58.7
Detroit Pistons 56.3
Cleveland Cavaliers 52.2
Milwaukee Bucks 46.3
Chicago Bulls 44.0

Pacific Division
Phoenix Suns 57.5
Sacramento Kings 54.5
Golden State Warriors 48.5
Los Angeles Clippers 47.5
Los Angeles Lakers 45.1

NorthWest Division
Denver Nuggets 55.7
Minnesota Timberwolves 50.0
Seattle Supersonics 48.5
Utah Jazz 45.7
Portland Trailblazers 33.3

Southwest Division
San Antonio Spurs 63.1
Dallas Mavericks 56.5
Houston Rockets 52.9
Memphis Grizzlies 47.9
New Orleans Hornets 29.6

Which would result in a playoff seeding of:

*Playoffs*

Eastern Conference
1. Miami Heat (SE)
2. Indiana Pacers (C)
3. New Jersey Nets (A)
4. Detroit Pistons
5. Cleveland Cavaliers
6. Philadelphia 76ers
7. Milwaukee Bucks
8. New York Knicks
(lottery)
9. Chicago Bulls
10. Orlando Magic
10. Washington Wizards
12. Boston Celtics
13. Toronto Raptors
14. Atlanta Hawks
15. Charlotte Bobcats

Western Conference
1. San Antonio Spurs (SW)
2. Phoenix Suns (P)
3. Denver Nuggets (NW)
4. Dallas Mavericks
5. Sacramento Kings
6. Houston Rockets
7. Minnesota Timberwolves
8. Seattle Supersonics
8. Golden State Warriors
(lottery)
10. Memphis Grizzlies
11. Los Angeles Clippers
12. Utah Jazz
13. Los Angeles Lakers
14. Portland Trailblazers
15. New Orleans Hornets

*Analysis*

1. First thing I notice is that only 5 fans picked their team to be below .500 (Toronto, Atlanta, Charlotte, Portland, New Orleans). Easy to say that many fans will be dissappointed since those 5 teams are generally considered below .500 anyways. Last year there were 12 teams.

2. Furthermore, the total number of wins in any NBA season is 1230. What I got was 1417. Nearly 200 extra wins.

3. Only 7 fans think their team will win fewer games than last year (Boston, Toronto, Chicago, Washington, Seattle, Phoenix, and Dallas). Again, more fans will be dissappointed. 

4. Which fans think their team improved the most?


Utah +19.7
Milwaukee +16.3
Atlanta +15.9
Indiana +14.7
Golden State +14.5
New York +11.9
New Orleans +11.6
Los Angeles Lakers +11.1
Los Angeles Clippers +10.5
Cleveland Cavaliers +10.2

And like I said before, only 7 teams actually picked less (Phoenix was 1st with 4.5 fewer wins). If you add up their totals, it only comes out to 16.5 fewer wins than last year. Yes, thats the 7-team total and still fewer than the improved win total from Utah alone. So when fans think they get better, they think high. When they think they are getting worse, they are conservative. 

*My Awards*

Most overrated by their own fans

1. Minnesota - 50 wins? Improved by 6? Improved at all? Are you kidding me? Lost Cassell and Sprewell, while adding players like Richie Frahm, Marko Jaric, Nikoloz Tskitishvili? And remember, they still have Olowokandi. Last year showed KG cant do it by himself.

2. Utah - Nearly 20 games better? I know they had injuries but the west is as tough as ever, and they added a rookie PG. Also brought back Ostertag which should take away about 8 wins by himself. 20 is way too many.

3. Orlando - What exactly did you do to improve by over 7 games? Draft some kid to play overseas? The East got better - you didn't.

4. Philadelphia - Can't see them being this high, especially with all the improved teams around them. Didn't do enough to keep pace nor to justify a win improvement of 5 or so games. 


Most underrated by their own fans

1. Houston - Not even 2 extra wins from last year? These guys will be good and think will win more than 53 games.

2. Washington - They still have a tough team. Won't be as good as last year but will be fighting for a playoff spot for sure.

3. LA Lakers - The only reason is I just don't see them ending up last in their division. But an 11 game improvement seems about right.

4. Chicago - Finally resolved the Eddy Curry problem and should still field a competitive team. Whether or not they can make the playoffs again, especially since they are in a VERY difficult division, remains to be seen, but they will still be a solid team.

*Overall*

Not scientific by any means, but its a fun look at the preseason hype generated by fans of nearly every team. At a time when every body can boast that their team is undefeated and in first place. Fortunately, in less than a month, the real games begin.

(If anyone has specific questions about any data I didn't post, feel free to ask)

[Note: Props to Wizard, Jazz, Spur, Raptor, Kings, and Suns fans - had the easiest time getting predictions for those teams. They had the most data and results. Strangely enough, I had the harest time getting data from Piston, Heat, Sonic, Clipper, Knick, and Rocket fans.]


----------



## P33r~ (Nov 22, 2004)

Wow. Reps to you for doing all that research.

Funny that Houston fans in general seem to underrate their team. I got the impression, mostly from Ming_7_6, that Rockets fans believed they were on their way to an NBA championship. Even the most diehard Lakers fans can often be a little too pessimistic so I somewhat expected them underrating their own team.

:rofl: Magic fans.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

thanks.

due to the extra wins, every team should subtract 6-7 wins from their total to make it more realistic.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

even scarier - assuming some fans underestamated and some were fairly accurate, it means some fans potentially overestimated by as many as 10-15 games.


----------



## back2newbelf (May 26, 2005)

nice job. very interesting.
what you could do to make the predictions look less weird is normalize all wins so they add up to 1230.
also, ostertag isn't as bad as you think


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

good point about normalizing.


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

My East-West Standings look like this...

Eastern Conference
1. Indiana Pacers
2. Detriot Pistons
3. Miami Heat
4. Boston Celtics
5. Philadelphia 76ers
6. Chicago Bulls
7. Washington Wizards
8. Cleveland Cavaliers
9. New Jersey Nets
10. New York Knicks
11. Orlando Magic
12. Milwaukee Bucks
13. Toronto Raptors
14. Atlanta Hawks
15. Charlotte Bobcats

Western Conference
1. San Antonio Spurs
2. Denver Nuggets
3. Phoenix Suns
4. Dallas Mavericks
5. Houston Rockets
6. Golden State Warriors
7. Los Angeles Lakers
8. Sacramento Kings
9. Memphis Grizzlies
10. Utah Jazz
11. Los Angeles Clippers
12. Seattle Supersonics
13. Minnesota Timberwolves
14. Portland Trailblazers
15. New Orleans Hornets


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Nice, a total of 5 teams under .500. :cheers:

Based on these results and my personal opinion I think that 76ers, Bucks, Cavs, Bulls, Hawks, Celtics, Kings, Lakers, Hornets are way too optimistic and although I think Denver will win their division I think Nuggets, Mavs and Timberwolves are also slightly too optimistic.

I don't see Miami or San Antonio winning more than 60 either. Maybe 60 but definately not 63. Considering this is an average number, I am quite shocked some San Antonio fans must have projected like 66 wins.


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

My sleeper team is the Portland Trailblazers, if they get their star players Darius Miles and Zach Randolf in rehab, they should be a solid team. But if they're higher than kites, lottery balls again. I like Webster, he's got a few Michael Redd qualities to his game and I love how he's interested in tape of McGrady, Allen and Bryant to study. Outlaw will shock the NBA scene, the kid has been working his tail off this summer. Telfair should be much improved from last year, he was tearing it up in the summer league at only half-speed.


----------



## Mavericks_Fan (Apr 19, 2005)

Good number crunching, NugzFan. I always knew Mavericks fans were a level-headed lot


----------



## Mavericks_Fan (Apr 19, 2005)

jminges said:


> My East-West Standings look like this...
> 
> Eastern Conference
> 1. Indiana Pacers
> ...


Wow.









*EDIT*:
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 32 (2 members and 30 guests)

Holy crap, why don't some of you people register and say something?


----------



## Carbo04 (Apr 15, 2005)

Very, very nice. Major rep.


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

The Celtics younsters have been playing together all summer and Al Jefferson will start for them. It will be his "breakout" season, given the playing time and the work he's done to his body and game this summer. I'm also very interested in seeing how Orien Greene plays, his game is very similar to Dwyane Wade's - not a good jump shooter, but has a good all-around game. He should be a starter by the end of this season (at point guard). LaFrentz isn't a star, but he's a fairly good role player, he has adequate defense - boards well some nights... oh, and they still have Paul Pierce! They should be exceeding a lot of expectations next year, playoff caliber attitude, championship aspirations.


----------



## mjm1 (Aug 22, 2005)

jminges said:


> The Celtics younsters have been playing together all summer and Al Jefferson will start for them. It will be his "breakout" season, given the playing time and the work he's done to his body and game this summer. I'm also very interested in seeing how Orien Greene plays, his game is very similar to Dwyane Wade's - not a good jump shooter, but has a good all-around game. He should be a starter by the end of this season (at point guard). LaFrentz isn't a star, but he's a fairly good role player, he has adequate defense - boards well some nights... oh, and they still have Paul Pierce! They should be exceeding a lot of expectations next year, playoff caliber attitude, championship aspirations.


no they will not win the atlantic divison, it takes years for a young team like boston to gel together. I MEAN COME ON, the average age of that team is 23.5 years old. they will not win more games than last year with the losses of both antoine walker AND gary payton who both carried the team to the divison title last season. Also each winner of the divison is guaranteed no less than the third seed for the playoffs. Please explain how they will be able to compete with teams like the nets and sixers, two teams with playoff experience and nba veterans who know what it takes to win.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

mjm1 said:


> they will not win more games than last year with the losses of both antoine walker AND gary payton who both carried the team to the divison title last season.



haha. So you like Walker and Payton when it is beneficial to your arguement. :biggrin:


----------



## xmiltsx (Oct 6, 2005)

im sorry, but the numbers dont match up... coming to each team playing roughly 94.5 games. great research though


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

I doubt the Celtics will finish with 41 wins, let alone 43.

mjm1, Gary Payton was awful last season. The combo of Dan Dickau and Marcus Banks is better than Payton, although if Delonte West sees major minutes at the point guard position, then I'll agree with you.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

jminges said:


> The Celtics younsters have been playing together all summer and Al Jefferson will start for them. It will be his "breakout" season, given the playing time and the work he's done to his body and game this summer. I'm also very interested in seeing how Orien Greene plays, his game is very similar to Dwyane Wade's - not a good jump shooter, but has a good all-around game. He should be a starter by the end of this season (at point guard). LaFrentz isn't a star, but he's a fairly good role player, he has adequate defense - boards well some nights... oh, and they still have Paul Pierce! They should be exceeding a lot of expectations next year, playoff caliber attitude, championship aspirations.


Al Jefferson isn't a good interior defender.

Orien Greene will not recieve _any_ nightly playing time.

LaFrentz isn't a very good dender, certainly not "adequate".


----------



## (-) 0 † § I-I () † (Jun 11, 2002)

76ers fans have something to be optimistic about.....its jsut whether we are too optimistic.

It is interesting though to see some realistic standings there. Obviously some teams will overacheive, and some will underacheive but that research still gives a decent look at how it could turn out (adjusted to games).

You figure MOST fans will tack on extra wins, so you add wins to every team and it kind of equals out. It will be interesting to look back at this. Especially when the 76ers have 72 wins.....or 27.


----------



## broshrddg (Jun 5, 2002)

Denver will not win 55 games this season.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Timberwolves fans are gonna be very dissapointed...........50 games? ha......ha..................h....a.........


----------



## back2newbelf (May 26, 2005)

to everbody laughin at the number of wins for some teams:
take the number of wins and multiply them by 1230(actual number of wins in a total season) and divide by 1417(projected wins from the predictions). 
the result should be much closer to reality


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

NugzFan said:


> Most overrated by their own fans
> 
> 1. Minnesota - 50 wins? Improved by 6? Improved at all? Are you kidding me? Lost Cassell and Sprewell, while adding players like Richie Frahm, Marko Jaric, Nikoloz Tskitishvili? And remember, they still have Olowokandi. Last year showed KG cant do it by himself.


I cannot possibly imagine how the Wolves could be worse than they were last year (outside of an injury to KG, and by that I mean an inury that forces him to miss games, not an injury that he can play through but limits his effectiveness like what happened last season). Last year was rock bottom. And when rock bottom is 44 wins, you go yourself a pretty good team. Improved by 6? At least, maybe more.

Losing Cassell and Spree are pluses, not minuses. Even ignoring their cancerous attitudes, we're better without them. Cassell was injured much of the time, can't run the offense because of selfishness, and is probably the worst defender in the league. Spree is a bad defender, has absolutely no athleticism, and has turned into a shooter...problem is that he can't shoot. Frahm and Skita? Those guys were signed for the minimum, how can you use players signed for basically nothing against a team? We brought in Jaric to replace Cassell, and McCants to replace Sprewell. And how is having Olowokandi a bad thing? Because he isn't as good as he was expected to be when he was drafted? When you're out on the court, where you were drafted 7 years ago doesn't matter at all. In contract years he averages 11ppg, 9rpg, 1.9bpg. Those are pretty good numbers, despite the fact that he is Michael Olowokandi.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Well,
Lets say Minnesota hit rock bottom last season. They are not the same team as last season so the new definition of rock bottom for their team is lower than it was last season.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

back2newbelf said:


> to everbody laughin at the number of wins for some teams:
> take the number of wins and multiply them by 1230(actual number of wins in a total season) and divide by 1417(projected wins from the predictions).
> the result should be much closer to reality


Nope, because the better most teams were the less their fans overrate their outlook for the season, there are exceptions of course, some fan bases didn't overrate their teams at all, some were very conservative and some very good teams are really overrating their teams. When the average prediction for example is over 60 wins that's a little bit crazy.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

xmiltsx said:


> im sorry, but the numbers dont match up... coming to each team playing roughly 94.5 games. great research though



well im glad you missed the point. 

of course the numbers dont add up! that WAS the point!


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

broshrddg said:


> Denver will not win 55 games this season.


yeah i think thats too high too. maybe 52?


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

Cool research. I've wondered about something like this for a while.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

back2newbelf said:


> to everbody laughin at the number of wins for some teams:
> take the number of wins and multiply them by 1230(actual number of wins in a total season) and divide by 1417(projected wins from the predictions).
> the result should be much closer to reality


yup - ill do that for the entire list and post new results later. 1230/1417 = .868...which means fans need to subtract off about 13-14% of whatever they pick to make it more realistic.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

socco said:


> I cannot possibly imagine how the Wolves could be worse than they were last year (outside of an injury to KG, and by that I mean an inury that forces him to miss games, not an injury that he can play through but limits his effectiveness like what happened last season). Last year was rock bottom. And when rock bottom is 44 wins, you go yourself a pretty good team. Improved by 6? At least, maybe more.


rock bottom for what? is there a minimum number of wins the wolves MUST GET every year? is that a rule? 

can they win less than 44? yes. they can.



> Losing Cassell and Spree are pluses, not minuses. Even ignoring their cancerous attitudes, we're better without them. Cassell was injured much of the time, can't run the offense because of selfishness, and is probably the worst defender in the league. Spree is a bad defender, has absolutely no athleticism, and has turned into a shooter...problem is that he can't shoot. Frahm and Skita? Those guys were signed for the minimum, how can you use players signed for basically nothing against a team? We brought in Jaric to replace Cassell, and McCants to replace Sprewell. And how is having Olowokandi a bad thing? Because he isn't as good as he was expected to be when he was drafted? When you're out on the court, where you were drafted 7 years ago doesn't matter at all. In contract years he averages 11ppg, 9rpg, 1.9bpg. Those are pretty good numbers, despite the fact that he is Michael Olowokandi.


losing cassell/spree are pluses in the long run, not short term. this team is KG and less talent then last year. guys like skita, frahm, griffin, mccants, hudson, szerbiak, kandi, etc are not going to win many games. kg cannot do it on his own. not in the west. and the west is even tougher this year with improved teams that were below minnesota last year like the lakers, clippers, utah and golden state. 

no way they improve 6 games.

and i can use those guys against your team because they are taking up roster spots. they are part of your team. and its not like i ignored 2 or 3 all stars. kg is the only one. 

jaric isnt as good as cassell now and mccants isnt as good as spree now, thats why i said those moves will pay off in the long run, not short term. not this year. your backcourt is worse. besides, is jaric going to even stay healthy.

olowokandi isnt bad because he doesnt live up to expectations of being a #1 pick. hes bad because hes a below average nba player and doesnt help the team that much. i dont care where he was picked.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Suns fans are too optimistic, 58 wins? There is going to be a terrible chain reaction with the shooters gone. No spacing, Amare gets crowded. Nash won't have near as good of a season either. Those shooters really helped his game. 

The Bucks and Warriors are also too optomistic. Clippers, wow, way too optimistic. 

I think the Rockets, Pacers, Bulls and Kings are the most reasonable ones. They're slightly better, worse or about the same as last year, outside of the Pacers for obvious reasons.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

NugzFan said:


> rock bottom for what? is there a minimum number of wins the wolves MUST GET every year? is that a rule?


No, it's just that they played about as horrible as anybody could possibly imagine they would...and then played a little worse. If that's what 44 wins is, then I'm not sure how they could win less. 



NugzFan said:


> losing cassell/spree are pluses in the long run, not short term. this team is KG and less talent then last year.


Talent wasn't the problem. Even with Cassell and Spree regressing, there's no way the Wolves should've been worse than a 4th or 5th seed last year based on talent. It's a little thing called chemsitry, and we had absolutely none. But if you want to go that way, this team is KG (an improved version at that) and more talent than the 02-03 team who had the 4th best record in the NBA.



NugzFan said:


> and i can use those guys against your team because they are taking up roster spots. they are part of your team.


They're taking up the 11th and 12th roster spots, and you talk about them like we're expecting them to be huge contributors. Frahm, if he makes the team, is the 3rd string SG. Skita will fill in the few minutes at SF that Wally and Hassell don't play. They're not expected to have much of an impact at all.



NugzFan said:


> and its not like i ignored 2 or 3 all stars. kg is the only one.


Have you ever heard of a player named Wally Szczerbiak?



NugzFan said:


> jaric isnt as good as cassell now and mccants isnt as good as spree now, thats why i said those moves will pay off in the long run, not short term. not this year. your backcourt is worse. besides, is jaric going to even stay healthy.


I'd take Jaric and McCants over Sam and Spree right now, no question. I would guess Jaric will miss some games due to injury, but Sam will too. And we finally have a healthy Troy Hudson, something we haven't had since 02-03.



NugzFan said:


> olowokandi isnt bad because he doesnt live up to expectations of being a #1 pick. hes bad because hes a below average nba player and doesnt help the team that much. i dont care where he was picked.


That's just simply not true. Olowokandi is a very solid legit center, and those are hard to come by these days. I'd rather have him as the backup C, and he actually might be coming off the bench with Griffin starting instead. The fact that he's in a contract year, which he's shown in the past to pick up his play, helps more.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

By the way, this was an amazing post. Repped for sure, and I don't rep much.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Suns fans are too optimistic, 58 wins? There is going to be a terrible chain reaction with the shooters gone. No spacing, Amare gets crowded. Nash won't have near as good of a season either. Those shooters really helped his game.


Raja Bell and James Jones are both 40+% 3pt shooters and Kurt Thomas has one of the best midrange games among big guys.

Maybe you didn't know but 58 wins is pretty dramatic fall off looking an the overall predictions here.

Amare got double-triple teamed anyway.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

socco said:


> No, it's just that they played about as horrible as anybody could possibly imagine they would...and then played a little worse. If that's what 44 wins is, then I'm not sure how they could win less.


they could. they might. maybe if certain players have career years, they can hit 44 again. remember, you lost talent and other teams got much better.




> Talent wasn't the problem. Even with Cassell and Spree regressing, there's no way the Wolves should've been worse than a 4th or 5th seed last year based on talent. It's a little thing called chemsitry, and we had absolutely none. But if you want to go that way, this team is KG (an improved version at that) and more talent than the 02-03 team who had the 4th best record in the NBA.


talent wasnt the problem but it might be now. a roster of kg, hudson, frahm, hassell, jaric, madsen, mccants, griffin, olowokandi, szczerbiak and skita isnt very good compared to many other teams. its all relative.




> They're taking up the 11th and 12th roster spots, and you talk about them like we're expecting them to be huge contributors. Frahm, if he makes the team, is the 3rd string SG. Skita will fill in the few minutes at SF that Wally and Hassell don't play. They're not expected to have much of an impact at all.


fair enough but my point remains...who is going to have the impact?




> Have you ever heard of a player named Wally Szczerbiak?


i have and hes no all star. 




> I'd take Jaric and McCants over Sam and Spree right now, no question. I would guess Jaric will miss some games due to injury, but Sam will too. And we finally have a healthy Troy Hudson, something we haven't had since 02-03.


still not a very scary backcourt. 




> That's just simply not true. Olowokandi is a very solid legit center, and those are hard to come by these days. I'd rather have him as the backup C, and he actually might be coming off the bench with Griffin starting instead. The fact that he's in a contract year, which he's shown in the past to pick up his play, helps more.


fact is hes not very good. hes not horrible but he doesnt help win many games.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Suns fans are too optimistic, 58 wins? There is going to be a terrible chain reaction with the shooters gone. No spacing, Amare gets crowded. Nash won't have near as good of a season either. Those shooters really helped his game.



The style they play is the best for regular season. Thats how the Mavs get 50+ wins every year.

So, I don't see how you think that is "to optomistic"


The Nuggets probable could do that.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Raja Bell and James Jones aren't near as good as Johnson and Richardson. Amare will have to put that team on his back and carry them if they're going to win 58 games.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Amareca said:


> Amare got double-triple teamed anyway.


Amare who?

not #32 Amare Stoudemire


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

NugzFan said:


> they could. they might. *maybe if certain players have career years, they can hit 44 again.* remember, you lost talent and other teams got much better.


Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow!



NugzFan said:


> talent wasnt the problem but it might be now. a roster of kg, hudson, frahm, hassell, jaric, madsen, mccants, griffin, olowokandi, szczerbiak and skita isnt very good compared to many other teams. its all relative.


Yes, it is. You, and others, think it's not because of how bad the Wolves were last year.



NugzFan said:


> i have and hes no all star.


OK, you've heard about him, but don't know anything about him.



NugzFan said:


> still not a very scary backcourt.


In your mind. I'm not all that worried.



NugzFan said:


> fact is hes not very good. hes not horrible but he doesnt help win many games.


He's a solid 7 foot center with a history of playing very good in contract years. There's not many great centers out there. So I don't know how you can count that as a negative (then recant and say it makes no difference) when it's clearly a positive. He's not gonna be an amazing player, or anything close to it, but he's decent, and that's good enough.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Raja Bell and James Jones aren't near as good as Johnson and Richardson. Amare will have to put that team on his back and carry them if they're going to win 58 games.


Doesn't matter wether it is true or not. Your concern is shooting, they both shot over 40% from behind the arc something Q didn't for example and they didn't have the luxury of spotting up wide open on running teams being recipients of Steve Nash passes or Amare sucking the defense inside.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Raja Bell and James Jones aren't near as good as Johnson and Richardson. Amare will have to put that team on his back and carry them if they're going to win 58 games.


see I look at it like this..

they can find guys to match JJ and Q's production...which translates into regular season wins. If loosing JJ and Q is gonna affect the suns its gonna show in the postseason.

with that being said I pick the Kings to win the Pacific...the theme is "bounce back"


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

socco said:


> Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow!


thanks! 




> Yes, it is. You, and others, think it's not because of how bad the Wolves were last year.


so suddenly these role players who didnt do anything last year are going to help the wolves this year? a less talented wolves team at that. 



> OK, you've heard about him, but don't know anything about him.


hes not an all star. he might have been in the past but hes no all star now.



> In your mind. I'm not all that worried.


well i feel better now.



> He's a solid 7 foot center with a history of playing very good in contract years. There's not many great centers out there. So I don't know how you can count that as a negative (then recant and say it makes no difference) when it's clearly a positive. He's not gonna be an amazing player, or anything close to it, but he's decent, and that's good enough.


fine...hes ok. that doesnt make the wolves better because he was ok last year too.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

NugzFan said:


> so suddenly these role players who didnt do anything last year are going to help the wolves this year? a less talented wolves team at that.


They're good, you think they're not because you're only looking at one season, it's really that simple.



NugzFan said:


> hes not an all star. he might have been in the past but hes no all star now.


Well, he's an all-star, that's a fact, you said he wasn't. You can say he's not as good anymore, but it doesn't make sense to say that he's not an all-star. And you'll just have to wait and see I guess, because he'll be back to all-star form again this season...


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

tone wone said:


> see I look at it like this..
> 
> they can find guys to match JJ and Q's production...which translates into regular season wins. If loosing JJ and Q is gonna affect the suns its gonna show in the postseason.
> 
> with that being said I pick the Kings to win the Pacific...the theme is "bounce back"


I'd have to extremely doubt that the Suns will miss what Q gave them in the playoffs 37% shooting and 50% FT shooting along with just 11ppg against Dallas and 42% and just 10ppg against the Spurs. That plus his very average defense.

JJ played very good when he played which was basically next to nothing significant after the first round sweep of the Grizzilies. But on a per minute basis Raja Bell's production is equal to JJs and it's not like Bell played so little minutes that it would be a meaningless comparison.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Amareca said:


> Doesn't matter wether it is true or not. Your concern is shooting, they both shot over 40% from behind the arc something Q didn't for example and they didn't have the luxury of spotting up wide open on running teams being recipients of Steve Nash passes or Amare sucking the defense inside.


Richardson shot 5 times as many three pointers as Bell last season, and was only 4% worse. If you think Bell can shoot almost 700 three pointers next season and still maintain 35%+ from the three point line, more power to you, but I'll believe it when I see it. Where was Raja Bell and James Jones in the three point contest? They are decent shooters, but let's be real, they aren't as good at three point shooting as Johnson and Richardson, and they aren't near them as overall players.


----------



## SirChaz (Feb 4, 2005)

tone wone said:


> see I look at it like this..
> 
> they can find guys to match JJ and Q's production...which translates into regular season wins. If loosing JJ and Q is gonna affect the suns its gonna show in the postseason.
> 
> with that being said I pick the Kings to win the Pacific...the theme is "bounce back"



They will have guys that match JJ and Q's production. It may not come from just two players but then the starters (except for probably Marion and Stoudemire) won't be playing as many minutes this year either. Last year JJ played 40 min a game to get his numbers. 

With the Suns point differential last year (and a supposedly imporved defense and rebounding this year) they can afford to score fewer points and still win a lot of regular season games.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Richardson shot 5 times as many three pointers as Bell last season, and was only 4% worse. If you think Bell can shoot almost 700 three pointers next season and still maintain 35%+ from the three point line, more power to you, but I'll believe it when I see it. Where was Raja Bell and James Jones in the three point contest? They are decent shooters, but let's be real, they aren't as good at three point shooting as Johnson and Richardson, and they aren't near them as overall players.


Well...
where was Joe Johnson in the 3pt contest? He embarassed himself if that contest means anything. Besides I'd say that Raja Bell is a better player than Q overall.

The Suns team that started like 37-3 last season lost Johnson, Q, Outlaw, Shirley, Hunter, Voskuhl and they got Kurt Thomas, Brian Grant, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, James Jones, Eddie House, Pat Burke and Jim Jackson. I'd say overall we definately improved.

Amare Stoudemire is getting better like we are already used to, Barbosa and Diaw looked dramatically improved over last season during the summer.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

Very nice work. I must say that the main thing that jumped out at me was the Clippers with 48 wins. Simply put, that won't happen. 


I was bored at school one day and was trying to come up with predictions for W/L around the league, and I made sure that I used the records from last year so the wins and losses add up right. To keep this short, I found it was pretty difficult to find teams that I thought were going to fare much worse than last season, but it was pretty easy to find teams you would think would do much better than last season. That's the fun of the preseason predictions I guess, because you know there are going to be some teams that bomb but you really can't guess just who.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

Amareca said:


> I don't see Miami or San Antonio winning more than 60 either. Maybe 60 but definately not 63. Considering this is an average number, I am quite shocked some San Antonio fans must have projected like 66 wins.



Who would have thought the Suns would win 62 games last year? Never say never right?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Amareca said:


> I'd have to extremely doubt that the Suns will miss what Q gave them in the playoffs 37% shooting and 50% FT shooting along with just 11ppg against Dallas and 42% and just 10ppg against the Spurs. That plus his very average defense.


q shot better from 3 in the playoffs than he did in the regular season.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Raja Bell and James Jones aren't near as good as Johnson and Richardson. Amare will have to put that team on his back and carry them if they're going to win 58 games.



maybe not in all-around game their not, but as pure shooters they are comparable. surround amare with raja, james jones, jjax, nash, barbosa, and house and you've got a ton of 3 point shooters waiting for a dish. remember, joe johnson's 3 point percentage was in the low 30s prior to nash coming on board. i'll give you that some of jj's improvement was his own practicing the shot, but a lot also came as a result of nash's dishes and the open looks afforded jj in the offense the suns ran. now all those other guys i listed (and yeah, there are SIX of 'em - many more than last year) get to benefit the same way jj did. oh, and just b/c Q TOOK a lot of threes doesn't mean he was a prolific shooter. check out his percentage.

in addition to all the shooters during the offseason amare added a dribble drive to his left and extended his shooting range. poor brian grant was stunned when amare smoked him left during informal workouts recently. and the team will be much improved defensively this year.

if this group gels as is expected, then there shouldn't be a big dropoff in games won. i'd say 57 is about right. the main pieces, amare, nash, and marion are still in place.


----------



## Darkwing Duck (Sep 6, 2004)

Ah, so you are the same Nugzfan that posts at the Jazz Board I lurk at.


----------



## Ron Mexico (Feb 14, 2004)

Too many wins


----------



## TonyMontana_83 (Dec 4, 2004)

Nugzfan, how could Utah be on your most over-rated list and not Golden State or the Clippers? You think it's unrealistic for Utah to win 45 games, but not unrealistic for the Clippers and Warriors to win 47 and 48? Anyways, very good work and an idea I had never seen done before. Very original. :greatjob:


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

TonyMontana_83 said:


> Nugzfan, how could Utah be on your most over-rated list and not Golden State or the Clippers? You think it's unrealistic for Utah to win 45 games, but not unrealistic for the Clippers and Warriors to win 47 and 48? Anyways, very good work and an idea I had never seen done before. Very original. :greatjob:



I think 35 wins is going to be a stretch for Utah. Look at their roster. That is not a good team. Rookie PG that struggled in summer league expected to run the team is bad news IMO.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> I think 35 wins is going to be a stretch for Utah. Look at their roster. That is not a good team. Rookie PG that struggled in summer league expected to run the team is bad news IMO.



They have talent. They aren't a very deep team, but they have enough talent to be a competitive team, especially with Sloan as the coach. I don't think they have that one star to win the division, but they should at least be a pretty damn competitive team.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

What Orlando fans predict us to win 43 games? I'm thinking high 20's or low 30's, honestly.


----------



## Mavericks_Fan (Apr 19, 2005)

PHXSPORTS4LIFE said:


> oh, and just b/c Q TOOK a lot of threes doesn't mean he was a prolific shooter. check out his percentage.


eFG% 04-05

Q-Rich .498
Raja .495

eFG% career

Q-Rich .477
Raja .469

So if Q isn't a prolific shooter, then how is his replacement going to be of any value?


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Who cares about careeer stats?

Bell shot 45.4% FG 40.3%3s 74.7%FT last season Q shot 39%FG 35.8%3s 73.9%FT.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

KokoTheMonkey said:


> They have talent. They aren't a very deep team, but they have enough talent to be a competitive team, especially with Sloan as the coach. I don't think they have that one star to win the division, but they should at least be a pretty damn competitive team.


Sloan is a bit overrated as a coach. Every dingleberry coach in the NBA would have a good record coaching two HOFers your entire career. He hasn't done squat since Stockton retired. He had one team over achieve but so did Doc Rivers. Are they more talented then the Lakers, Warriors, Clippers, Grizzlies, or Sonic? I don't think so. I put them their talent level right with the Wolves, except the T Wolves have KG and that is about 5 more wins. So if you want to give automatic playoff births to San Antonio, Phoenix, Denver, Houston, Dallas and Sacremento that leaves the Jazz to battle 6 teams for two spots with the least amount of talent and depth....not good IMO. I see them finishing right above the Hornets, Blazers and Clippers with wins in the low 30s.


----------



## Mavericks_Fan (Apr 19, 2005)

Amareca said:


> Who cares about careeer stats?


Did you happen to notice this?



Mavericks_Fan said:


> eFG% *04-05*
> 
> Q-Rich .498
> Raja .495


And also there's this:

3 point attempts 04-05

Q-Rich 631
Raja 134

Q had nearly 5 times as many three point attempts as Raja. Are you saying Raja is going to have the same percentage taking 600 threes next year?

So again i ask, if Q has a higher eFG% than Raja Bell, both last year and for his career, and Q is not a good shooter then what does that say about his replacement?


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

If Bell takes more 3s his eFG% will be way better than Qs as long as he doesn't take bad 3s and Steve Nash will make sure that won't really happen. Bell is a better shooter than Q, much better defender.
Bell is going to add more to this team than Q with his insane inconsistency.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

socco said:


> They're good, you think they're not because you're only looking at one season, it's really that simple.


no, im saying it because they arent good.




> Well, he's an all-star, that's a fact, you said he wasn't. You can say he's not as good anymore, but it doesn't make sense to say that he's not an all-star. And you'll just have to wait and see I guess, because he'll be back to all-star form again this season...


keep living in the past. what he used to do isnt going to help this year. while your at it go sign bj armstrong, he was an all star too. 

im not saying hes bad...hes just no all star. and definitely not a reason why the wolves could win 50.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

TonyMontana_83 said:


> Nugzfan, how could Utah be on your most over-rated list and not Golden State or the Clippers? You think it's unrealistic for Utah to win 45 games, but not unrealistic for the Clippers and Warriors to win 47 and 48? Anyways, very good work and an idea I had never seen done before. Very original. :greatjob:


just my opinion...i think utah adding nearly 20 wins is very difficult in the tough west. the clips would probably be next on my overrated list but i think that golden state can win 48.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

NugzFan said:


> keep living in the past. what he used to do isnt going to help this year. while your at it go sign bj armstrong, he was an all star too.


In his all-star year he averaged 23.6 points per 48 minutes as the 2nd option on the team. Last year he averaged 23.54 points per 48 minutes as teh 4th option on the team. A difference of .064 points per 48 minutes. Box.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Great thread Nugzfan: you should get repped by pretty much everybody for this.

I would like to point out that you're research confirms the Cavs forum is full of good non-homer evaluators


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Amareca said:


> Who cares about careeer stats?
> 
> Bell shot 45.4% FG 40.3%3s 74.7%FT last season Q shot 39%FG 35.8%3s 73.9%FT.


eFG% is a superior shooting indicator than FG%, 3FG%, or FT%.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> Great thread Nugzfan: you should get repped by pretty much everybody for this.
> 
> I would like to point out that you're research confirms the Cavs forum is full of good non-homer evaluators


I would also like to point that while there may be some who try their best disprove this....Rocket fans aren't a bunch of crazy Yao nut-huggin homers


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

nice job

big time repped :clap:


----------



## TonyMontana_83 (Dec 4, 2004)

Socco, I tend to disagree with Nugzfan, but not here. I do disagree with him saying that there's no way the TWolves will win 50 games because you never know. People would have said the same thing about the Suns and Sonics last preseason. The NBA is very unpredictable, especially these days. With that said, I believe the TWolves will need to develop some amazing chemistry and quite a bit of luck to win 50 games this year. Just looking at their roster I don't see how it's reasonable to predict 50 wins for them, of course people say the same thing about the Jazz every year and have been proved wrong so we'll see.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm starting to believe the Timberwolves could win 50 games, only because I've decided that Rashad McCants is my rookie of the year pick. I really think he could put up 16-20 points per game playing alongside Garnett, and he will probably be depended upon to be their 2nd best scorer.


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

Have you seen the Timberwolves roster? It's UGLY. The only players I like on the Wolves are Hudsen and Garnett, everyone else is a scrub. Wolves should feel fortunate if they win 20 games with that roster.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I'm starting to believe the Timberwolves could win 50 games, only because I've decided that Rashad McCants is my rookie of the year pick. I really think he could put up 16-20 points per game playing alongside Garnett, and he will probably be depended upon to be their 2nd best scorer.



Don't fall for it. This is going to be a bad team. They will be poor defensively and struggle to score. Plus their depth is horrible. It is really KG and Wally. I mean McCants, Jaric, Hudson, Griffin, Madsen, and kandi would be a good bench, unfortunately three of them also have to start. Other than KG and Wally, the others are kind of brittle. This team will be C4'd by the trade deadline.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

socco said:


> In his all-star year he averaged 23.6 points per 48 minutes as the 2nd option on the team. Last year he averaged 23.54 points per 48 minutes as teh 4th option on the team. A difference of .064 points per 48 minutes. Box.



per 48 minutes are lame.

and do you really thnk hes an all star or even near that level?


----------



## The-Future-Phenom (Oct 4, 2005)

I'm hooking you up with some rep for that one. Great research. Thats some serious work ethic. :biggrin:


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

NugzFan said:


> per 48 minutes are lame.
> 
> and do you really thnk hes an all star or even near that level?


Lame? Well, if that's all you got, I'll put another notch in the W column.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

socco said:


> Lame? Well, if that's all you got, I'll put another notch in the W column.


all i know is that he isnt an all star and if you think he is, you are in a for a huge dissappointment. and yes, per 48 minute stats are lame. only people like you use them.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Might wanna re-think all of that Q - Bell, JJ - JJ talk, looking at this season so far.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ Amare Stoudemire's statistics this season; 0 ppg, 0 rpg, 0 apg.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Amare Stoudemire playoff appearances this season -> Worst case 8. 

Kobe Bryant -> Best Case Buying Tickets for the Clippers.


----------



## supermati (Mar 28, 2005)

Hornets already won 8 :clown:


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

Amareca said:


> Amare Stoudemire playoff appearances this season -> Worst case 8.


huh? what does that mean?


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

NugzFan said:


> huh? what does that mean?


I think he means that at the very least Amare will play in 8 playoff games this season. That number is obviously wrong in a number of ways, not sure how he came up with 8 though.


----------



## NugzFan (Jul 26, 2002)

socco said:


> I think he means that at the very least Amare will play in 8 playoff games this season. That number is obviously wrong in a number of ways, not sure how he came up with 8 though.


so hes assuming the suns make the playoffs, amare comes back and they make it to at least the 2nd round?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Amareca said:


> Amare Stoudemire playoff appearances this season -> Worst case 8.
> 
> Kobe Bryant -> Best Case Buying Tickets for the Clippers.


Bahaha. Speaking of Clippers; Brand > Amare.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

NugzFan said:


> so hes assuming the suns make the playoffs, amare comes back and they make it to at least the 2nd round?


lol, yep. That's Amareca for ya...


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

don't see what's so funny about 2nd rd possibility..but Ok?


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

dissonance19 said:


> don't see what's so funny about 2nd rd possibility..but Ok?


He didn't say it was a possibility, he said it was a given.


----------



## Blink4 (Jan 17, 2005)

Amareca said:


> Amare Stoudemire playoff appearances this season -> Worst case 8.
> 
> Kobe Bryant -> Best Case Buying Tickets for the Clippers.


funny guy


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

socco said:


> He didn't say it was a possibility, he said it was a given.



Well with the best passing duo Ever on the team, don't you think it is a given?


----------



## Cloud786 (Mar 18, 2005)

Not if they play the Mavs in the first round.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

EHL said:


> ^ Amare Stoudemire's statistics this season; 0 ppg, 0 rpg, 0 apg.


 thats cold


----------

