Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who is the most overrated team in the East this year ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DanH
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    I guess I would ask: why would we expect everyone else to rebound at exactly the same rate they did last season? That seems like a massive assumption that, well, can't possibly be correct. Can it? Wouldn't the fact that their new DRB% would be 70% - miles lower than anyone else - give us a hint that there's probably something going on?

    It's just hard for me to imagine that Sullinger was getting that many rebounds that no one else could possibly get, which is what we'd have to believe to see this kind of impact. I mean, Ben Wallace is considered one of the best rebounders of all time but his departure had no impact whatsoever on Detroit's rebounding numbers and he was replaced by a cripple and two mediocre versions of himself.
    Did you read the whole post? We start assuming that, but then later assume that half of the apparent impact is eliminated by other players rebounding more.

    Wallace was a very good rebounder, but by no stretch was he in "best ever" territory. And he was already declining significantly by the time he left DET.

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    If we expect everyone else on the team to rebound at roughly the same rate, then for the part of the game where Sully played last season, this means a drop off of 4.3% in OREB's and 8.8% in defensive rebounds. Sully played almost exactly half of the game (23.6 MPG) so the team numbers should be impacted by 2.1% and 4.4%. That leaves them at roughly 23% and 70%. Those would have ranked 23rd and 30th (by a mile) last season. This all assumes any minutes Horford plays beyond 24 MPG he is replacing someone who is as poor a rebounder as he is, a generous assumption

    I guess I would ask: why would we expect everyone else to rebound at exactly the same rate they did last season? That seems like a massive assumption that, well, can't possibly be correct. Can it? Wouldn't the fact that their new DRB% would be 70% - miles lower than anyone else - give us a hint that there's probably something going on?

    It's just hard for me to imagine that Sullinger was getting that many rebounds that no one else could possibly get, which is what we'd have to believe to see this kind of impact. I mean, Ben Wallace is considered one of the best rebounders of all time but his departure had no impact whatsoever on Detroit's rebounding numbers and he was replaced by a cripple and two mediocre versions of himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    ebrian wrote: View Post
    Wouldn't the Knicks need to be rated highly in order to be considered overrated? I haven't seen any Eastern Conference predictions or NBA power rankings that have rated the Knicks high. CBS has them #20 in the league, ESPN's pre-season rankings have them at 21st. That's not overrated at all.

    The Celtics are going to be an obvious choice, but they addressed a huge need at power forward. You can argue advanced stats and chemistry but PF was an obvious need which they filled. They won 66% of their games in 2016 last season. I remember a fewa years ago when Raptors won a lot of games down the stretch and the next season we were still rated low and we ended up being very good. I think it's fair to have Boston as the 3rd best team in the east so I'm going against the grain in saying they aren't overrated.

    Both of the above rankings have Raptors at 5th overall, 2nd best Eastern team, despite us really not doing much of anything in the summer. Personally I think we're a bit overrated.

    Darkhorse for overrated Eastern team for me would be the Pacers, who got better but were really still a bottom seed last year. Jeff Teague was a great addition but I'm lukewarm on Al Jefferson and Thaddeus Young. I'd be very surprised if that team finished 4th in the East like many pundits are predicting.
    When the Raps won a lot down the stretch in 2013-14 they ended up with an almost identical record the following year (a far cry from their winning rate down said stretch) and got swept in the first round.

    Why would not doing much rank us lower than 5th? No one behind us really made any real ground, with the possible exception of BOS (which I personally doubt). And we were 4th last year, and 2nd in the East.

    Leave a comment:


  • ebrian
    replied
    Wouldn't the Knicks need to be rated highly in order to be considered overrated? I haven't seen any Eastern Conference predictions or NBA power rankings that have rated the Knicks high. CBS has them #20 in the league, ESPN's pre-season rankings have them at 21st. That's not overrated at all.

    The Celtics are going to be an obvious choice, but they addressed a huge need at power forward. You can argue advanced stats and chemistry but PF was an obvious need which they filled. They won 66% of their games in 2016 last season. I remember a fewa years ago when Raptors won a lot of games down the stretch and the next season we were still rated low and we ended up being very good. I think it's fair to have Boston as the 3rd best team in the east so I'm going against the grain in saying they aren't overrated.

    Both of the above rankings have Raptors at 5th overall, 2nd best Eastern team, despite us really not doing much of anything in the summer. Personally I think we're a bit overrated.

    Darkhorse for overrated Eastern team for me would be the Pacers, who got better but were really still a bottom seed last year. Jeff Teague was a great addition but I'm lukewarm on Al Jefferson and Thaddeus Young. I'd be very surprised if that team finished 4th in the East like many pundits are predicting.
    Last edited by ebrian; Fri Sep 30th, 2016, 07:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • golden
    replied
    MangoKid wrote: View Post
    The Knicks. Far and away. They're hyping it up like it's some sort of super team. Don't know how Rose and Carmelo are going to work together.

    Bulls are second. That Rondo-Wade-Butler combination is awful.

    Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk
    But has anybody except Derrick Rose called the Knicks a Super Team, though? It's pretty much an open joke around the league. ESPN pre-season Power Rankings has the Knicks at #21, which is hard to call them overrated at that position.

    Leave a comment:


  • MangoKid
    replied
    The Knicks. Far and away. They're hyping it up like it's some sort of super team. Don't know how Rose and Carmelo are going to work together.

    Bulls are second. That Rondo-Wade-Butler combination is awful.

    Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle_Si
    replied
    Niagara Raptor wrote: View Post
    Dan H your post was informative and insightful ... so please stop it, your making the rest of us amateurs look bad
    I like tater tots.

    Leave a comment:


  • Niagara Raptor
    replied
    Dan H your post was informative and insightful ... so please stop it, your making the rest of us amateurs look bad

    Leave a comment:


  • Puffer
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post
    Quick consideration of why BOS's off-season was not as great as some think:

    Team | OREB% rank | DREB% rank
    BOS | 10th (25.1%) | 25th (74.6%)
    ATL | 30th | 26th

    Player | OREB% | DREB%
    Jared Sullinger | 10.6% | 27.0%
    Al Horford | 6.3% | 18.2%

    If we expect everyone else on the team to rebound at roughly the same rate, then for the part of the game where Sully played last season, this means a drop off of 4.3% in OREB's and 8.8% in defensive rebounds. Sully played almost exactly half of the game (23.6 MPG) so the team numbers should be impacted by 2.1% and 4.4%. That leaves them at roughly 23% and 70%. Those would have ranked 23rd and 30th (by a mile) last season. This all assumes any minutes Horford plays beyond 24 MPG he is replacing someone who is as poor a rebounder as he is, a generous assumption.

    If we are really generous, we say that other players stepping up halves that impact, and they end up at 24% and 72%. That would be 15th and 30th (by less margin).

    More directly, it shifts their ORTG and DRTG. If last season, the Celtics had an OREB% of 25.1%, and an ORTG of 106.8, it means they really scored 106.8 points per 125.1 plays (where 25.1 of those was after an offensive rebound). Ignoring the increased efficiency after a rebound (to be generous), that means this year, if they make no improvements to their offence (wait on this, I know Horford will help here), they will score 106.8 points per 125.1 plays as well. But instead of getting 125.1 plays per 100 possessions, they will get 124. Meaning their new ORTG is 105.9.

    So already, any offensive improvement Horford brings to the team is suppressed by 0.9 PPC (points per 100 possessions) as the decreased offensive rebounding will counteract some of that.

    Same logic for DRTG. With a 74.6% DREB%, it means the 103.6 DRTG they had was actually 103.6 points allowed over 100 possessions - but 25.4% of those possessions were two plays (one where the first play failed and there was an offensive board to start the next one). So they really allowed 103.6 points in 125.4 plays. This year, they will (again, assuming no change to their defence) allow 103.6 points per 125.4 plays, but the opposition will get more plays per 100 possessions. So the new DRTG works out to 105.7. That's a pretty huge 2.1 PPC hit on the defensive end.

    So right away, any defensive improvement from Horford is counteracted by 2.1 points per 100 possessions.

    Remember, this is all with the fairly generous assumptions that a) Horford's minutes beyond 24 MPG will not represent a drop off in rebounding as well, only his 24 MPG replacing Sully, and that b) various BOS players will rebound better without Sully there grabbing up all the boards, and as such the apparent drop in rebounding from Sully to Horford will be cut in half, and that c) rebounding loss only impacts possession count, and not efficiency differences after a rebound, even though offensive putbacks and transition plays off of defensive rebounds are definitely high-efficiency plays. A lot of generosity there, and we are still looking at a 3 PPC hit to Horford's impact right out of the gate. That's a big hit to overcome.

    Another way to look at it: to maintain (not improve, maintain) their ORTG and DRTG from last season, but with worse rebounding rates, they will need to effectively play with a ORTG of 107.7 and a DRTG of 101.5 (scoring rate, not considering rebound rates). That would be a 2 spot jump in ORTG rankings and a 2 spot jump in DRTG rankings, to the 9th and 2nd best ORTG and DRTG respectively. That's just to counteract the rebounding rate. Or, to look at it another way, if they don't see improved offence and defence because of Horford, and score and defend at the same rate while giving up more rebounds, they would sit at an ORTG and DRTG of 105.9 and 105.7. That's a pythagorean win expectation of 41.5 wins.

    Point being, I don't think nearly enough is being made of the rebounding situation in BOS and they will struggle to take a significant step forward even if Horford does consistently help them improve their scoring and defending.
    And that's why you are Dan The Man!

    Leave a comment:


  • GLF
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post
    Quick consideration of why BOS's off-season was not as great as some think:

    Team | OREB% rank | DREB% rank
    BOS | 10th (25.1%) | 25th (74.6%)
    ATL | 30th | 26th

    Player | OREB% | DREB%
    Jared Sullinger | 10.6% | 27.0%
    Al Horford | 6.3% | 18.2%

    If we expect everyone else on the team to rebound at roughly the same rate, then for the part of the game where Sully played last season, this means a drop off of 4.3% in OREB's and 8.8% in defensive rebounds. Sully played almost exactly half of the game (23.6 MPG) so the team numbers should be impacted by 2.1% and 4.4%. That leaves them at roughly 23% and 70%. Those would have ranked 23rd and 30th (by a mile) last season. This all assumes any minutes Horford plays beyond 24 MPG he is replacing someone who is as poor a rebounder as he is, a generous assumption.

    If we are really generous, we say that other players stepping up halves that impact, and they end up at 24% and 72%. That would be 15th and 30th (by less margin).

    More directly, it shifts their ORTG and DRTG. If last season, the Celtics had an OREB% of 25.1%, and an ORTG of 106.8, it means they really scored 106.8 points per 125.1 plays (where 25.1 of those was after an offensive rebound). Ignoring the increased efficiency after a rebound (to be generous), that means this year, if they make no improvements to their offence (wait on this, I know Horford will help here), they will score 106.8 points per 125.1 plays as well. But instead of getting 125.1 plays per 100 possessions, they will get 124. Meaning their new ORTG is 105.9.

    So already, any offensive improvement Horford brings to the team is suppressed by 0.9 PPC (points per 100 possessions) as the decreased offensive rebounding will counteract some of that.

    Same logic for DRTG. With a 74.6% DREB%, it means the 103.6 DRTG they had was actually 103.6 points allowed over 100 possessions - but 25.4% of those possessions were two plays (one where the first play failed and there was an offensive board to start the next one). So they really allowed 103.6 points in 125.4 plays. This year, they will (again, assuming no change to their defence) allow 103.6 points per 125.4 plays, but the opposition will get more plays per 100 possessions. So the new DRTG works out to 105.7. That's a pretty huge 2.1 PPC hit on the defensive end.

    So right away, any defensive improvement from Horford is counteracted by 2.1 points per 100 possessions.

    Remember, this is all with the fairly generous assumptions that a) Horford's minutes beyond 24 MPG will not represent a drop off in rebounding as well, only his 24 MPG replacing Sully, and that b) various BOS players will rebound better without Sully there grabbing up all the boards, and as such the apparent drop in rebounding from Sully to Horford will be cut in half, and that c) rebounding loss only impacts possession count, and not efficiency differences after a rebound, even though offensive putbacks and transition plays off of defensive rebounds are definitely high-efficiency plays. A lot of generosity there, and we are still looking at a 3 PPC hit to Horford's impact right out of the gate. That's a big hit to overcome.

    Another way to look at it: to maintain (not improve, maintain) their ORTG and DRTG from last season, but with worse rebounding rates, they will need to effectively play with a ORTG of 107.7 and a DRTG of 101.5 (scoring rate, not considering rebound rates). That would be a 2 spot jump in ORTG rankings and a 2 spot jump in DRTG rankings, to the 9th and 2nd best ORTG and DRTG respectively. That's just to counteract the rebounding rate. Or, to look at it another way, if they don't see improved offence and defence because of Horford, and score and defend at the same rate while giving up more rebounds, they would sit at an ORTG and DRTG of 105.9 and 105.7. That's a pythagorean win expectation of 41.5 wins.

    Point being, I don't think nearly enough is being made of the rebounding situation in BOS and they will struggle to take a significant step forward even if Horford does consistently help them improve their scoring and defending.
    Damn! You went in! Lol. Very informative

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    Quick consideration of why BOS's off-season was not as great as some think:

    Team | OREB% rank | DREB% rank
    BOS | 10th (25.1%) | 25th (74.6%)
    ATL | 30th | 26th

    Player | OREB% | DREB%
    Jared Sullinger | 10.6% | 27.0%
    Al Horford | 6.3% | 18.2%

    If we expect everyone else on the team to rebound at roughly the same rate, then for the part of the game where Sully played last season, this means a drop off of 4.3% in OREB's and 8.8% in defensive rebounds. Sully played almost exactly half of the game (23.6 MPG) so the team numbers should be impacted by 2.1% and 4.4%. That leaves them at roughly 23% and 70%. Those would have ranked 23rd and 30th (by a mile) last season. This all assumes any minutes Horford plays beyond 24 MPG he is replacing someone who is as poor a rebounder as he is, a generous assumption.

    If we are really generous, we say that other players stepping up halves that impact, and they end up at 24% and 72%. That would be 15th and 30th (by less margin).

    More directly, it shifts their ORTG and DRTG. If last season, the Celtics had an OREB% of 25.1%, and an ORTG of 106.8, it means they really scored 106.8 points per 125.1 plays (where 25.1 of those was after an offensive rebound). Ignoring the increased efficiency after a rebound (to be generous), that means this year, if they make no improvements to their offence (wait on this, I know Horford will help here), they will score 106.8 points per 125.1 plays as well. But instead of getting 125.1 plays per 100 possessions, they will get 124. Meaning their new ORTG is 105.9.

    So already, any offensive improvement Horford brings to the team is suppressed by 0.9 PPC (points per 100 possessions) as the decreased offensive rebounding will counteract some of that.

    Same logic for DRTG. With a 74.6% DREB%, it means the 103.6 DRTG they had was actually 103.6 points allowed over 100 possessions - but 25.4% of those possessions were two plays (one where the first play failed and there was an offensive board to start the next one). So they really allowed 103.6 points in 125.4 plays. This year, they will (again, assuming no change to their defence) allow 103.6 points per 125.4 plays, but the opposition will get more plays per 100 possessions. So the new DRTG works out to 105.7. That's a pretty huge 2.1 PPC hit on the defensive end.

    So right away, any defensive improvement from Horford is counteracted by 2.1 points per 100 possessions.

    Remember, this is all with the fairly generous assumptions that a) Horford's minutes beyond 24 MPG will not represent a drop off in rebounding as well, only his 24 MPG replacing Sully, and that b) various BOS players will rebound better without Sully there grabbing up all the boards, and as such the apparent drop in rebounding from Sully to Horford will be cut in half, and that c) rebounding loss only impacts possession count, and not efficiency differences after a rebound, even though offensive putbacks and transition plays off of defensive rebounds are definitely high-efficiency plays. A lot of generosity there, and we are still looking at a 3 PPC hit to Horford's impact right out of the gate. That's a big hit to overcome.

    Another way to look at it: to maintain (not improve, maintain) their ORTG and DRTG from last season, but with worse rebounding rates, they will need to effectively play with a ORTG of 107.7 and a DRTG of 101.5 (scoring rate, not considering rebound rates). That would be a 2 spot jump in ORTG rankings and a 2 spot jump in DRTG rankings, to the 9th and 2nd best ORTG and DRTG respectively. That's just to counteract the rebounding rate. Or, to look at it another way, if they don't see improved offence and defence because of Horford, and score and defend at the same rate while giving up more rebounds, they would sit at an ORTG and DRTG of 105.9 and 105.7. That's a pythagorean win expectation of 41.5 wins.

    Point being, I don't think nearly enough is being made of the rebounding situation in BOS and they will struggle to take a significant step forward even if Horford does consistently help them improve their scoring and defending.

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    golden wrote: View Post
    People seem to forget that the Raps played with a glaring hole all of last season - DeMarre Carroll.

    If JYD 2.0 can even play to the level of JYD 1.0, instead of last season's JYD 0.2, then that's like the Raps making a marquee free agent signing this off-season with a perfect fit in a position of high need (big SF). Assuming Carroll stays healthy and plays well and fits with Lowry/DD (all big IFs, though), that should keep the Raps in the 50 win range once again.
    Well, they also played without JV for ~25% of the season and the PF spot was a mess. I've made this point before: it's not as though this team had massive overachievement from a bunch of players. Even a guy like BB who had a "breakout" year and got paid big bucks, pretty much just provided his career average numbers.

    As for overrated, it's hard to say as I haven't seen a lot of the official predictions yet. I'm inclined to think Indy might be getting too much love (if the Raps made the moves Indy made people here would be rending garments and wailing in the streets) and the Knicks will likely get too much press (being in NYC and all). Thing is, after the Cavs in Tier 1 and the Raps/Celts in Tier 2, there's a glut of teams in that third Tier. Honestly, you could have up to 9 teams fighting for those 5 playoff spots if everyone stays healthy. It's hard to overrate anyone in that mess...

    Leave a comment:


  • MACK11
    replied
    The Indiana Pacers and the Knicks for the casual fans. The amount of people I've talked to here in the US that hype up the Knicks is insane. Knicks aren't even gonna win 40 games.

    Leave a comment:


  • golden
    replied
    People seem to forget that the Raps played with a glaring hole all of last season - DeMarre Carroll.

    If JYD 2.0 can even play to the level of JYD 1.0, instead of last season's JYD 0.2, then that's like the Raps making a marquee free agent signing this off-season with a perfect fit in a position of high need (big SF). Assuming Carroll stays healthy and plays well and fits with Lowry/DD (all big IFs, though), that should keep the Raps in the 50 win range once again.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    planetmars wrote: View Post
    I actually think Boston has a good team. I could see why they get the attention. They've had a storied history. A GM that's tenacious. A really good coach. Got the second best free agent on the market, and had a sit down with the best. And had a top 3 pick in a draft to boot.

    Toronto is in a tough market. ESPN won't cover since their foreign and won't help their bottom dollar. And in Canada hockey and baseball are easier to sell. So no matter how good Toronto is, it won't matter to the US. They'll always be under rated.

    Not really the poll question, but if I had to chose a team I think is going to fall flat on their faces.. I'd have to go with Atlanta. I think swapping Horford for Dwight was a terrible decision. Selfishly, I hope that happens so that Millsap becomes available in the trade market.
    The thing about BOS is everyone asks about what they got but not what they lost. Turner was a key ball handler for them and although not a great player was still important to what they did. And it's not like Horford is filling an empty spot - he's replacing Sully who was a pretty effective player himself.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X