I went full homer and projected 54 wins, 10 more than ESPN. Of course, I predicted about 10 games more than the experts last year, too.
So befor I haven't read your predictions this year and don't remember yours last year. You don't think we are around the 46 win zone? Assuming by your response, you think more? Just curious.
Oh I don't know about the win total I just think HOU and UTA will finish below us. But I guess this is all about statistical analysis?
Portland wrote their demise when they inked Turner to that deal. Sad, they had a chance at developing a cool team.
Why would Turner slow down our development? He will be a quality addition in certain situations. His court vision which we've already seen and mid range game is why we brought him in. We have a stable of sfs who have different strengths and will help us out in different ways against different teams. Aminu/Turner/Harkless will all probably average career lows this season, but together they make us pretty tough at the SF if you ask me. And welcome to our humble little sports forum my man. Always like seeing new people. Tell all your friends to join as well. Love hearing new opinions. Don't let some of these grumpy old guys around here rub you the wrong way.
Let me get this straight... HOU lost their best defensive player (Dwight Howard, +1.8 DBPM) and picked up NOP's two worst defenders (Ryan Anderson, -2.9 DBPM and Eric Gordon, -2.2 DBPM) and they are going to move up from 8th in the West to 4th? How exactly does that work? Must be the new math I keep hearing about. Oh well, at least they found their perfect coach. Their players don't give a shit about defense. So, you might as well hire a coach that feels the same way. BNM
Well, if it's cool we're after, Turner is the bomb (yeah, people still say that - old people like me). He's absolutely the best interview in the whole damn league. Oh yeah, he should improve our bench significantly, which should help us win more games. That would be cool, too. I suppose. BNM
In all seriousness, I hate Harden as much as the everybody else, but I'm one of those guys who has to give props when and where they are deserved.... and didn't make an all nba team last season, with THOSE numbers!!!?? Those a better than a lot of MVPs have gotten, no?
Better than some, in terms of raw stats, but not most. Worse than almost all in terms of team record and advanced stats. The NBA just doesn't hand out MVP trophies to guys who play on teams that win 41 games. It usually goes to the best player on the best team, or a guy who has a season for the ages on a team that wins ~60 games. Over the last 30 years, the MVP winner's team has averaged 62 wins. The lowest win total in that 30 year span was the Chicago Bulls who won 50 games in 1987-88 (29 years ago) when Michael Jordan won his first MVP. Jordan averaged 35.0 ppg that season and his advanced stats were off the charts (21.2 WS - highest in the last 45 years and WS/48 of .308). His FG% of .535 was the second highest of any guard to ever win MVP, trailing only his own .539 FG% in 1990-91. Jordan scored a lot, but he was also an incredibly efficient scorer, and his team won 50 games, as stated, a low water mark for an MVP winner in the last 30 years. By contrast, Harden was an inefficient chucker on a 41 win team. His WS of 13.3 and WS/48 would have been among the lowest to ever win an MVP award. Pretty much identical to Derrick Rose's 2010-11 advanced stats, and many consider Rose the least deserving MVP in recent history, perhaps ever. But, at least Rose's team won 62 games - so again best player on best team wins the MVP. Harden was the best player on a mediocre team, who was an inefficient scorer with very low advanced stats (for an MVP candidate). MVP voters know you're only valuable, in an MVP sense, if you lead your team to one of the best, if not THE best, record in the league. BNM
